Fitsgerald Johanes v. Eric Holder, Jr.
Opinion
Opinion
MEMORANDUM
Kirin Devi, a native and citizen of India, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying her 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. Malty v. Ashcroft, 381 F.3d 942, 945 (9th Cir.2004). We deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion by denying Devi’s motion to reopen as untimely where the motion was filed more than five years after the BIA’s final order, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2 (c)(2), and Devi failed to present sufficient evidence of changed circumstances in India to qualify for the regulatory exception to the time limit for filing motions to reopen, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2 (c)(3)(h); see also Malty, 381 F.3d at 945 (“The critical question is ... whether circumstances have changed sufficiently that a petitioner who previously did not have a legitimate claim for asylum now has a well-founded fear of persecution.”). Devi’s contention that the BIA failed to consider all the evidence she presented with the motion to reopen is not supported by the record.