FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION NOV 25 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
HARDEEP SINGH BHAMRA, No. 13-71377
Petitioner, Agency No. A079-605-153
v.
MEMORANDUM*
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 18, 2015**
Before: TASHIMA, OWENS, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
Hardeep Singh Bhamra, 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. Toufighi v.
*
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).
Mukasey, 538 F.3d 988, 992 (9th Cir. 2008). We deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Bhamra’s third motion to
reopen where it was filed over eight years after his order of removal became final,
see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Bhamra failed to establish materially changed
circumstances in India to qualify for the regulatory exception to the time and
number limitations for motions to reopen, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); Toufighi,
538 F.3d at 996-97 (evidence was immaterial in light of prior adverse credibility
determination); Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 987-90 (9th Cir. 2010)
(evidence must be “qualitatively different” to warrant reopening). We reject
Brahma’s contention that the BIA did not consider and assess the relevant
evidence. See Najmabadi, 597 F.3d at 990-91 (BIA adequately considered the
evidence and sufficiently announced its decision).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2 13-71377