Case Name: Gurpreet KAUR, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-02-27
Citations: 222 F. App'x 675
Docket Number: No. 05-76579
Parties: Gurpreet KAUR, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: BEEZER, FERNANDEZ, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 222
Pages: 675–676

Head Matter:
Gurpreet KAUR, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 05-76579.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 20, 2007 .
Filed Feb. 27, 2007.
Hector M. Roman, Jr., Esq., Roman & Singh, LLP, Jackson Heights, NY, for Petitioner.
Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Virginia Lum, DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Gregory C.J. Lisa, Organized Crime and Racketeering Section, U.S. DOJ/Criminal Division, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: BEEZER, FERNANDEZ, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Gurpreet Kaur, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order denying her motion to reopen removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, see Konstantinova v. INS, 195 F.3d 528, 529 (9th Cir.1999), and we deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Kaur's motion to reopen as untimely where Kaur filed the motion more than four months after the BIA's final order of removal, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and failed to submit evidence of changed country conditions in India that would excuse the late filing, cf. Malty v. Ashcroft, 381 F.3d 942, 945 (9th Cir.2004) (requiring circumstances to "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.