Sarup Lal v. Eric Holder, Jr.

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION DEC 6 2013 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT SARUP LAL, No. 12-71357 Petitioner, Agency No. A079-290-266 v. MEMORANDUM* ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted November 19, 2013** Before: CANBY, TROTT, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges. Sarup Lal, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his third motion to reopen removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen. Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d * 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). 983, 986 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny the petition for review. The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Lal’s third motion to reopen as untimely and number-barred where the motion was filed over six years after the BIA’s final order, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Lal failed to present sufficient evidence of changed circumstances in India to qualify for the regulatory exception to the time and number limits for filing motions to reopen, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); Najmabadi, 597 F.3d at 988-89. We reject Lal’s contention that the BIA’s typographical error constituted a misapplication or misstatement of the law. We also reject Lal’s contention that the BIA erred by considering Lal’s request for humanitarian asylum solely under its sua sponte authority. PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 2