
    Saras Wati CHAND; Ganeshwar Chand, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 10-71725.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted June 10, 2013.
    
    Filed June 12, 2013.
    Babak Pourtavoosi, Pannun The Firm, P.C., Jackson Heights, NY, for Petitioners.
    Lance Lomond Jolley, Esquire, Trial, OIL, David V. Bernal, Assistant Director, DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: HAWKINS, McKEOWN, and BERZON, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Saras Wati Chand and Ganeshwar Chand, natives and citizens of Fiji, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying their motion to reopen removal proceedings. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen. Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir.2010). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying the Chands’ untimely motion to reopen where the motion was filed almost four years after the BIA’s final decision, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and the Chands failed to establish changed circumstances in Fiji material to their claim, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); Najmabadi, 597 F.3d at 987 (to be “material,” the new evidence “must be ‘qualitatively different’ from the evidence produced at the previous hearing”) (internal citation omitted).

We lack jurisdiction over the Chands’ claim that the BIA erred by not granting them withholding of removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture, or by failing to conduct a disfavored group analysis, because they did not sufficiently argue these contentions in their motion to reopen. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir.2004).

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.
     