Case Name: Deep KAPOOR, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-04-08
Citations: 321 F. App'x 548
Docket Number: No. 06-75474
Parties: Deep KAPOOR, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: LEAVY, HAWKINS, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 321
Pages: 548–549

Head Matter:
Deep KAPOOR, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 06-75474.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted March 18, 2009.
April 8, 2009.
Hector M. Roman, Jr., Esq., Roman & Singh, LLP, Jackson Heights, NY, for Petitioner.
Ronald E. L efe we, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Oil, U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Before: LEAVY, HAWKINS, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Deep Kapoor, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order denying his second motion to reopen removal proceedings. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U:S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 894 (9th Cir.2003), and we deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Kapoor's second motion to reopen as untimely and numerically barred where Kapoor filed the motion nearly three years after the BIA's decision, and he failed to demonstrate changed circumstances in India to qualify for the regulatory exception to the time and numerical limits for filing motions to reopen. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), 1003.2(c)(3)(ii).
To the extent Kapoor challenges the BIA's December 11, 2003 order dismissing his direct appeal from the immigration judge's decision, we lack jurisdiction because he did not timely petition for review of that order. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1); see also 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 is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.