Case Name: Ishri PRASAD; Doreen Shalini Sukhdeo, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-04-16
Citations: 376 F. App'x 684
Docket Number: No. 07-72294
Parties: Ishri PRASAD; Doreen Shalini Sukhdeo, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: RYMER, McKEOWN, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 376
Pages: 684–685

Head Matter:
Ishri PRASAD; Doreen Shalini Sukhdeo, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 07-72294.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted April 5, 2010.
Decided April 16, 2010.
Ashwani K. Bhakhri, Law Offices of Ashwani K. Bhakhri, Burlingame, CA, for Petitioner.
Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Craig Alan Newell, Jr., Esquire, Trial, OIL, James Arthur Hunolt, Senior Litigation Counsel, DOJ— U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: RYMER, McKEOWN, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Ishri Prasad and his wife Doreen Shalini Sukhdeo, natives and citizens of Fiji, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order denying their 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, Ordonez v. INS, 345 F.3d 777, 782 (9th Cir.2003), and we deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Prasad's motion to reopen because it was untimely, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and because Prasad failed to present sufficient evidence of changed circumstances in Fiji to qualify for the regulatory exception to the time limit for filing motions to reopen, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); Malty v. Ashcroft, 381 F.3d 942, 945 (9th Cir.2004) ("The critical question is . whether circumstances have changed sufficiently that a petitioner who previously did not have a legitimate claim for asylum now has a well-founded fear of future persecution.").
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.