FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION APR 16 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
BHUPINDERPAL SINGH BAL, No. 07-73422
Petitioner, Agency No. A076-677-562
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 5, 2010 **
Before: RYMER, McKEOWN, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
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. §
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
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.
2 07-73422