Case Name: Surinder PAUL, AKA Surinder Paul Singh, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-12-01
Citations: 671 F. App'x 489
Docket Number: No. 14-70671
Parties: Surinder PAUL, AKA Surinder Paul Singh, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, and KOZINSKI and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 671
Pages: 489–490

Head Matter:
Surinder PAUL, AKA Surinder Paul Singh, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 14-70671
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted November 16, 2016 San Francisco, California
Filed December 01, 2016
Pardeep S. Grewal, Esquire, Law Offices of Pardeep S. Grewal, Castro Valley, CA, for Petitioner
Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Securi ty, San Francisco, CA, OIL, Sheri Robyn Glaser, Trial Attorney, DOJ—U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, for Respondent
Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, and KOZINSKI and FRIEDLAND, 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
A motion to reopen a removal proceeding must ordinarily be filed within ninety days of a final removal order. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i). But there's no time limit if the motion to reopen is based on material evidence relating to changed country conditions that was unavailable earlier in the proceeding. See id. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii). To successfully reopen a proceeding, a petitioner must show that this new evidence is "qualitatively different" from what was previously submitted. See Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 987 (9th Cir. 2010) (citing Malty v. Ashcroft, 381 F.3d 942, 945-46 (9th Cir. 2004)).
Paul insists that country conditions in India have changed, but he offers no qualitatively different evidence that this is so. Paul's three new affidavits, all from his family members, recapitulate what he had previously submitted. Paul's new country conditions evidence is similarly redundant. The Board of Immigration Appeals did not abuse its discretion by denying Paul's motion to reopen as untimely.
DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.