Kapoor v. Holder
This text of 321 F. App'x 548 (Kapoor v. Holder) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
MEMORANDUM
Deep Kapoor, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his second 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, Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 894 (9th Cir.2003), and we deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Kapoor’s second motion to reopen as untimely and numerically barred where Kapoor filed the motion nearly three years after the BIA’s decision, and he failed to demonstrate changed circumstances in India to qualify for the regulatory exception to the time and numerical limits for filing motions to reopen. See 8 C.F.R. §§ 1003.2(c)(2), 1003.2(c)(3)(ii).
To the extent Kapoor challenges the BIA’s December 11, 2003 order dismissing his direct appeal from the immigration judge’s decision, we lack jurisdiction because he did not timely petition for review of that order. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1); see also Singh v. INS, 315 F.3d 1186, 1188 (9th Cir.2003).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
This disposition is not appropriate for'publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
321 F. App'x 548, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kapoor-v-holder-ca9-2009.