Case Name: Dewan CHAND, Dewand Chand AKA Dewan Puri, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-11-03
Citations: 700 F. App'x 757
Docket Number: No. 16-71842
Parties: Dewan CHAND, Dewand Chand AKA Dewan Puri, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: LEAYY, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 700
Pages: 757–757

Head Matter:
Dewan CHAND, Dewand Chand AKA Dewan Puri, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 16-71842
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted October 23, 2017
Filed November 3, 2017
William Frick, Law Office of William Frick, Seattle, WA, for Petitioner
OIL, Jason Wisecup, DOJ—U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent
Before: LEAYY, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, 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
Dewan Chand, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order denying his third untimely motion to reopen removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review the BIA's denial of a motion to reopen for abuse of discretion. Avagyan v. Holder, 646 F.3d 672, 678 (9th Cir. 2011). We deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Chand's motion to reopen as time and number barred, where it was his third such motion, he filed it more than eleven years after the filing deadline, and he failed to demonstrate that any exception to the time or number bars was warranted. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(A) & (C); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), (c)(3)(i)-(iv) & (3); Avagyan, 646 F.3d at 679.
Because these determinations are dis-positive, we need not reach Chand's contentions regarding his eligibility for adjustment of status or a waiver of inadmissibility. See Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 538 (9th Cir. 2004) (courts and agencies are not required to reach non-dispositive issues).
Chand's motion for a stay of removal is denied as moot.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.