NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JUN 29 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
RENU MADHAR; SANTOKH No. 08-74276
MADHAR,
Agency Nos. A072-683-740
Petitioners, A072-683-739
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 15, 2011 **
Before: CANBY, O’SCANNLAIN, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Renu Madhar and Santokh Madhar, natives and citizens of India, 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
*
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).
review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, Najmabadi v.
Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir. 2010), and we deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying the Madhars’ motion to
reopen where the motion was filed almost three years after the BIA’s final
administrative order, see 8 C.F .R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and the Madhars failed to
demonstrate changed circumstances in India to qualify for the regulatory exception
to the time limitation, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); Najmabadi, 597 F.3d at 987
(new evidence “must be ‘qualitatively different’ from the evidence presented at the
previous hearing”); see also Toufighi v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 988, 996-97 (9th Cir.
2008) (underlying adverse credibility determination rendered evidence of changed
circumstances immaterial).
Contrary to the Madhars’ contention, the BIA adequately considered the
evidence presented with the motion to reopen. See Najmabadi, 597 F.3d at 990-91
(BIA must consider issues raised and announce its decision in a manner sufficient
for reviewing court to perceive that it has heard and thought and not merely
reacted).
To the extent the Madhars attempt to challenge the agency’s underlying
credibility determination, we decline to review this claim because this court
already decided the issue in Madhar v. Gonzales, 221 F. App’x 645 (9th Cir.
2 08-74276
2007). See Disimone v. Browner, 121 F.3d 1262, 1266 (9th Cir. 1997) (under law
of the case doctrine, one panel of an appellate court will not reconsider questions
that another panel has decided on a prior appeal in the same case).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 08-74276