
    Siknaber PAWAL, a.k.a. Sikander Singh, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 08-71537.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Sept. 13, 2010.
    
    Filed Sept. 30, 2010.
    Christopher John Stender, Esquire, Stender & Lappin, San Diego, CA, for Petitioner.
    OIL, Kimberly A. Burdge, Esquire, Trial, DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Ronald E. LeFevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Siknaber Pawal, 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 denial of a motion to reopen, Toufighi v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 988, 992 (9th Cir.2008), and we deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion by denying Pawal’s third motion to reopen as untimely and numerically barred where it was filed over four years after the BIA’s final order, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Pawal failed to establish changed circumstances in India to qualify him for the regulatory exception to the time and numerical limitations, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); see also Malty v. Ashcroft, 381 F.3d 942, 945-46 (9th Cir.2004).

Pawal’s contentions that the BIA failed to properly consider the evidence and impermissibly deemed the affidavits he submitted not credible are belied by the record.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     