Case Name: Surinder 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: 2013-05-24
Citations: 520 F. App'x 583
Docket Number: No. 10-71823
Parties: Surinder KAUR, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: LEAVY, THOMAS, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 520
Pages: 583–583

Head Matter:
Surinder KAUR, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 10-71823.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted May 14, 2013.
Filed May 24, 2013.
Christopher John Stender, Esquire, Federal Immigration Counselors, Inc., APC, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.
Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Theo Nickerson, Esquire, Oil, Matthew Allan Spurlock, Ada Elsie Bosque, Senior Litigation Counsel, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: LEAVY, THOMAS, and MURGUIA, 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
Surinder Kaur, native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order denying her 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. 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 Kaur's untimely motion to reopen where the motion was filed over four years after the BIA's final decision, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Kaur failed to establish changed circumstances in India material to her claim to qualify for the regulatory exception to the time limitation, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(h); Toufighi, 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.