
    Gursant Singh GREWAL, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 08-74341.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Aug. 11, 2011.
    
    Filed Aug. 16, 2011.
    Christopher John Stender, Esquire, Immigration Practice Group A Professional Corporation, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.
    Ernesto Horacio Molina, Jr., Esquire, Senior Litigation Counsel, OIL, Gladys Marta Steffens Guzman, Esquire, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Ronald E. LeFevre, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before THOMAS, SILVERMAN, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

PER CURIAM.

Gursant Singh Grewal, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 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 in denying Grewal’s motion to reopen as time-barred where the motion was filed over four years after the BIA’s final decision, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Gre-wal failed to present sufficient evidence of changed circumstances in India to qualify for an exception to the time limit, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); see also Toufighi, 538 F.3d at 996-97.

We reject Grewal’s contention that the BIA did not adequately examine his evidence because he has not overcome the presumption that the BIA reviewed the record. See Fernandez v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 592, 603 (9th Cir.2006). We also reject Grewal’s contention that the BIA applied the wrong legal standard.

To the extent Grewal challenges the agency’s underlying adverse credibility determination, we decline to consider the contentions because the court previously rejected them in Grewal v. Ashcroft, 120 Fed.Appx. 140 (9th Cir.2005). See Merritt v. Mackey, 932 F.2d 1317, 1320 (9th Cir.1991) (explaining under the “law of the case doctrine,” one panel of an appellate court will not reconsider questions which another panel has decided on a prior appeal in the same case).

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