Check how courts have cited this case. Use our free citator for the most current treatment.
No. 8641483
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Kumar v. Gonzales
No. 8641483 · Decided June 7, 2007
No. 8641483·Ninth Circuit · 2007·
FlawFinder last updated this page Apr. 2, 2026
Case Details
Court
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided
June 7, 2007
Citation
No. 8641483
Disposition
See opinion text.
Full Opinion
MEMORANDUM ** Sanjiv Kumar, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen to reapply for asylum based upon changed country conditions. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252 . Reviewing for abuse of discretion, Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 894 (9th Cir.2003), we deny the petition for review. The BIA acted within its discretion in denying as untimely Kumar’s motion to reopen because it was filed nearly one year after the BIA’s final removal order, see 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i) (motion to reopen must be filed within 90 days of final administrative removal order), and Kumar failed to present new and material evidence of changed conditions in India, see 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i) (no time limit on motion to reopen to apply for asylum based on changed country conditions). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cír. R. 36-3.
Plain English Summary
MEMORANDUM ** Sanjiv Kumar, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen to reapply for asylum based upon changed country conditions.
Key Points
01MEMORANDUM ** Sanjiv Kumar, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen to reapply for asylum based upon changed country conditions.
02INS, 321 F.3d 889, 894 (9th Cir.2003), we deny the petition for review.
03The BIA acted within its discretion in denying as untimely Kumar’s motion to reopen because it was filed nearly one year after the BIA’s final removal order, see 8 U.S.C.
04§ 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i) (motion to reopen must be filed within 90 days of final administrative removal order), and Kumar failed to present new and material evidence of changed conditions in India, see 8 U.S.C.
Frequently Asked Questions
MEMORANDUM ** Sanjiv Kumar, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen to reapply for asylum based upon changed country conditions.
FlawCheck shows no negative treatment for Kumar v. Gonzales in the current circuit citation data.
This case was decided on June 7, 2007.
Use the citation No. 8641483 and verify it against the official reporter before filing.