Case Name: Kuldip SINGH; et al., Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-10-21
Citations: 542 F. App'x 681
Docket Number: No. 09-71810
Parties: Kuldip SINGH; et al., Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: FISHER, GOULD, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 542
Pages: 681–681

Head Matter:
Kuldip SINGH; et al., Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 09-71810.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Oct. 15, 2013.
Filed Oct. 21, 2013.
Inderjit Kaur, Elk Grove, CA, pro se.
Jaspreet Singh, Esquire Law Office of Jaspreet Singh Jackson Heights, NY, for Petitioners.
Amritpal Singh, Elk Grove, CA, pro se.
Kuldip Singh, Elk Grove, CA, pro se.
Oil, Aaron R. Petty, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Ronald E. Le-fevre, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: FISHER, GOULD, and BYBEE, 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
Kuldip Singh and his family, natives and citizens of India, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order denying their motion to reopen. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the 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 petitioners' motion to reopen as untimely because the motion was filed nearly five years after the BIA's final decision, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and petitioners failed to demonstrate 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); Najmabadi, 597 F.3d at 989-90.
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.