Case Name: SUKHJIT SINGH THIARA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-03-03
Citations: 559 F. App'x 627
Docket Number: No. 12-71319
Parties: SUKHJIT SINGH THIARA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: ALARCÓN, O’SCANNLAIN, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 559
Pages: 627–628

Head Matter:
SUKHJIT SINGH THIARA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 12-71319.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 18, 2014.
Filed March 3, 2014.
Jaspreet Singh, Esquire, Law Office of Jaspreet Singh, Jackson Heights, NY, for Petitioner.
Margot Carter, Trial, OIL, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: ALARCÓN, O’SCANNLAIN, and FERNANDEZ, 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
Sukhjit Singh Thiara, 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. Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir.2010). We deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion by denying Thiara's third motion to reopen as untimely and number-barred because the motion was filed more than eight years after the BIA's final order, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Thiara failed to demonstrate materially changed conditions in India to qualify for the regulatory exception to the time and numerical limit for filing motions to reopen, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); Najmabadi, 597 F.3d at 987 (evidence must be "qualitatively different" from the evidence presented at the previous hearing).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.