Case Name: Ahmad ALI, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-08-16
Citations: 447 F. App'x 796
Docket Number: No. 09-70221
Parties: Ahmad ALI, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: THOMAS, SILVERMAN, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 447
Pages: 796–797

Head Matter:
Ahmad ALI, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 09-70221.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Aug. 11, 2011.
Filed Aug. 16, 2011.
Manpreet Singh Gahra, Law Office of Manpreet Singh Gahra, Berkeley, CA, for Petitioner.
OIL, Jennifer R. Khouri, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Ronald E. LeFevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: THOMAS, SILVERMAN, and CLIFTON, 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.
Ahmad Ali, 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 denial of a motion to reopen. Najma- badi 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 Ali's motion to reopen as untimely because he filed the motion nearly four years after the BIA issued its final order of removal, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and he failed to present sufficient evidence of changed circumstances in India to qualify for an exception to the time limit for filing motions to reopen, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3) (ii).
Ali's contention that the BIA applied an improper legal standard in denying his motion to reopen is belied by the record.
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.