Case Name: Kulwinder KAUR, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-01-21
Citations: 362 F. App'x 820
Docket Number: No. 07-70909
Parties: Kulwinder KAUR, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: BEEZER, TROTT, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 362
Pages: 820–821

Head Matter:
Kulwinder KAUR, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 07-70909.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Jan. 11, 2010.
Filed Jan. 21, 2010.
Richard E. Oriakhi, Esq., Roman & Singh, LLP, Fremont, CA, for Petitioner.
Kevin James Conway, Esquire, Marshall Tamor Golding, Esquire, U.S. Department of Justice, Richard M. Evans, Esquire, Assistant Director, Washington, DC, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: BEEZER, TROTT, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Kulwinder Kaur, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order denying her motion to reopen. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 894 (9th Cir.2003), and we deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Kaur's motion to reopen because the motion was filed three years after the BIA's final removal order, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Kara* failed to present sufficient evidence of changed circumstances in India to qualify for the regulatory exception to the time limit, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); see also Malty v. Ashcroft, 381 F.3d 942, 945 (9th Cir.2004).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.