Case Name: Sandeep KHOSLA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-07-31
Citations: 535 F. App'x 587
Docket Number: No. 11-72796
Parties: Sandeep KHOSLA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: ALARCÓN, CLIFTON, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 535
Pages: 587–587

Head Matter:
Sandeep KHOSLA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 11-72796.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted July 24, 2013.
Filed July 31, 2013.
Jaspreet Singh, Esquire, Law Office of Jaspreet Singh, Jackson Heights, NY, for Petitioner.
Victor Manuel Mercado-Santana, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: ALARCÓN, CLIFTON, and CALLAHAN, 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
Sandeep Khosla, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order denying 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. Toufighi v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 988, 992 (9th Cir.2008). We deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Khosla's motion to reopen as untimely where the motion was filed over three years after the BIA's final order, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Khosla failed to establish changed circumstances in India to qualify for the regulatory exception to the time limit for filing motions to reopen, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(h); Toufi-ghi, 538 F.3d at 996-97 (underlying adverse credibility determination rendered evidence of changed circumstances immaterial).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.