Kulbhushan Kumar v. Loretta Lynch

MEMORANDUM

Kulbhushan Kumar, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen. 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 983, 986 (9th Cir. 2010), and we review de novo due process claims in immigration proceedings, Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1011 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny the petition for review.

We deny Kumar’s opposed motion to supplement the record on appeal. See Fisher v. INS, 79 F.3d 955, 963 (9th Cir. 1996) (en banc).

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Kumar’s motion to reopen as untimely where the motion was filed over two years after the BIA’s final order, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2 (c)(2), and Kumar failed to demonstrate material changed circumstances in India to qualify for a regulatory exception to the time limitations for filing a motion to reopen, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2 (c)(3)(ii); Najmabadi, 597 F.3d at 991-92 (evidence must be “qualitatively different” to warrant reopening). Kumar’s contentions that the BIA overlooked his facts and claims are unpersuasive. See…