HARDEEP BHAMRA V. LORETTA E. LYNCH, No. 13-71377 (9th Cir. 2015)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS NOV 25 2015 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT HARDEEP SINGH BHAMRA, Petitioner, No. 13-71377 Agency No. A079-605-153 v. MEMORANDUM* LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted November 18, 2015** Before: TASHIMA, OWENS, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges. Hardeep Singh Bhamra, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his third 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. Toufighi v. * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Mukasey, 538 F.3d 988, 992 (9th Cir. 2008). We deny the petition for review. The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Bhamra’s third motion to reopen where it was filed over eight years after his order of removal became final, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Bhamra failed to establish materially changed circumstances in India to qualify for the regulatory exception to the time and number limitations for motions to reopen, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); Toufighi, 538 F.3d at 996-97 (evidence was immaterial in light of prior adverse credibility determination); Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 987-90 (9th Cir. 2010) (evidence must be “qualitatively different” to warrant reopening). We reject Brahma’s contention that the BIA did not consider and assess the relevant evidence. See Najmabadi, 597 F.3d at 990-91 (BIA adequately considered the evidence and sufficiently announced its decision). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 2 13-71377

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.