Varinder Kaur v. Eric H. Holder Jr.

MEMORANDUM

Varinder Kaur, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying her motion to reopen. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252 . We review for an abuse of discretion, Malty v. Ashcroft, 381 F.3d 942, 945 (9th Cir.2004), and we deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Kaur’s motion to reopen as untimely because the motion was filed over two years after the BIA’s final order, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2 (c)(2), and Kaur failed to present material evidence of changed circumstances in India to qualify for the regulatory exception to the time limitation for filing motions to reopen, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2 (c)(3)(h); see also Toufighi v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 988, 996-97 (9th Cir.2008) (underlying adverse credibility determination rendered evidence of changed circumstances immaterial).

We reject Kaur’s contentions that the BIA applied an incorrect standard, ignored evidence, or failed to adequately explain its decision. See Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 990-91 (9th Cir.2010).

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in construing Kaur’s challenge to…