NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 21 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
KULWANT SINGH; et al., No. 12-73731
Petitioners, Agency Nos. A070-669-363
A070-669-364
v. A070-669-365
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General, MEMORANDUM*
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 15, 2018**
Before: SILVERMAN, BEA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
Kulwant Singh and her family, natives and citizens of India, petition for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying their motion
to reopen removal proceedings. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252.
We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen. Najmabadi v.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny in part and dismiss in part the
petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners’ second motion
to reopen as untimely and number-barred where the motion was filed more than
eight years after the BIA’s final order, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and where
petitioners failed to establish a material change in country conditions in India to
qualify for the regulatory exception to the time and number limitations for filing a
motion to reopen, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); Najmabadi, 597 F.3d at 987-90
(petitioner failed to show evidence was “qualitatively different” to warrant
reopening); see also Go v. Holder, 744 F.3d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 2014) (holding that
“the procedural requirements specified in 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c) apply to CAT
claims”).
We reject petitioners’ contentions that the BIA failed to consider their
motion to reopen or their evidence. See Najmabadi, 597 F.3d at 990-91 (finding
the BIA adequately considered petitioner’s evidence and sufficiently announced its
decision)
To the extent that petitioners challenge the agency’s discretionary decision
not to reopen proceedings sua sponte, we lack jurisdiction to review that
discretionary decision, where petitioners fail to raise a colorable constitutional
claim or question of law about the sua sponte determination that would invoke our
2 12-73731
jurisdiction. See Go, 744 F.3d at 609-10; cf. Bonilla v. Lynch, 840 F.3d 575, 588
(9th Cir. 2016) (“[T]his court has jurisdiction to review Board decisions denying
sua sponte reopening for the limited purpose of reviewing the reasoning behind the
decisions for legal or constitutional error.”).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
3 12-73731