Case Name: Bhupinderpal Singh BAL, Petitioner, 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 679
Docket Number: No. 07-73422
Parties: Bhupinderpal Singh BAL, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: RYMER, McKEOWN, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 376
Pages: 679–679

Head Matter:
Bhupinderpal Singh BAL, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 07-73422.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted April 5, 2010.
Filed April 16, 2010.
Bhupinderpal Singh Bal, Oakland, CA, pro se.
Richard M. Evans, Esquire, OIL, Andrew Jacob Oliveira, Esquire, Sada Man-ickam, Esquire, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Ronald E. Le-fevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: RYMER, McKEOWN, and PAEZ, 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
Bhupinderpal Singh Bal, a native and citizen of India, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order denying Bal's third 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, Toufighi v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 988, 992 (9th Cir.2008), and we deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Bal's motion to reopen as untimely and numerically barred because it was Bal's third motion to reopen and it was filed almost five years after the BIA's final order of removal, see 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i) (motion to reopen must be filed within ninety days of final order of removal); 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(A) (a party may file only one motion to reopen), and Bal failed to establish changed circumstances in India to qualify for the regulatory exception to the time and number limitations. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); Malty v. Ashcroft, 381 F.3d 942, 945-46 (9th Cir.2004).
Bal's contention that the BIA failed to consider the evidence with his motion to reopen fails because he has not overcome the presumption that the BIA did review the record. See Fernandez v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 592, 603 (9th Cir.2006).
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.