Case Name: SARUP LAL, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-12-06
Citations: 548 F. App'x 415
Docket Number: No. 12-71357
Parties: SARUP LAL, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: CANBY, TROTT, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 548
Pages: 415–416

Head Matter:
SARUP LAL, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 12-71357.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Nov. 19, 2013.
Filed Dec. 6, 2013.
Martin R. Robles-Avila, Esq., Federal Immigration Counselors, Inc., APC, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.
OIL, Paul F. Stone, Esq., 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: CANBY, TROTT, and THOMAS, 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
Sarup Lal, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board of Immi gration Appeals' ("BIA") order denying his third 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 in denying Lai's third motion to reopen as untimely and number-barred where the motion was filed over six years after the BIA's final order, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Lai failed to present sufficient evidence of changed circumstances in India to qualify for the regulatory exception to the time and number limits for filing motions to reopen, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); Najmabadi, 597 F.3d at 988-89.
We reject Lai's contention that the BIA's typographical error constituted a misapplication or misstatement of the law. We also reject Lai's contention that the BIA erred by considering Lai's request for humanitarian asylum solely under its sua sponte authority.
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.