Case Name: Sarbjit KAUR, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-06-16
Citations: 185 F. App'x 608
Docket Number: No. 04-74936
Parties: Sarbjit KAUR, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: KLEINFELD, PAEZ, and BERZON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 185
Pages: 608–609

Head Matter:
Sarbjit KAUR, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 04-74936.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted June 12, 2006.
Filed June 16, 2006.
Sarbjit Kaur, Dayton, OH, pro se.
Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Melissa Neiman-Kelting, U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: KLEINFELD, PAEZ, and BERZON, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Sarbjit Kaur, a native and citizen of India, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order denying as untimely her motion to reopen removal proceedings. To the extent we have jurisdiction, it is conferred by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion, see Movsisian v. Ashcroft, 395 F.3d 1095, 1098 (9th Cir.2005), and we deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
The BIA acted within its discretion in denying Kaur's motion to reopen as untimely because Kaur filed her motion five months after the BIA's decision, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2) (motion to reopen must be filed within ninety days of BIA's decision), and failed to demonstrate changed circumstances in India to qualify for the regulatory exception to the time limitation, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii).
We are without jurisdiction to review Kaur's challenge to the BIA's January 8, 2004 dismissal of her appeal on the merits, because this petition for review is not timely as to that decision. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1); Singh v. INS, 315 F.3d 1186, 1188 (9th Cir.2003).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part, DISMISSED in part.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.