Case Name: Amarjit Singh AUJLA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-09-30
Citations: 540 F. App'x 702
Docket Number: No. 10-71443
Parties: Amarjit Singh AUJLA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: RAWLINSON, N.R. SMITH, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 540
Pages: 702–702

Head Matter:
Amarjit Singh AUJLA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 10-71443.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Sept. 24, 2013.
Filed Sept. 30, 2013.
Christopher John Stender, Esquire, Federal Immigration Counselors, Inc., APC, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.
Nicole Thomas-Dorris, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: RAWLINSON, N.R. SMITH, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Amarjit Singh Aujla, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") denial of his motion to reopen removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the BIA's denial of a motion to reopen, Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir.2010), and we deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Aujla's second motion to reopen as untimely and number-barred because the motion was filed over five years after the BIA's final decision, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Aujla failed to establish materially changed circumstances in India to qualify for the regulatory exception to the time and numerical limitations for motions to reopen, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); Najmabadi, 597 F.3d at 988-89 (evidence of changed circumstances must be qualitatively different from what could have been presented at prior hearing).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.