
    BALWINDER SINGH MALHI, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 07-73279.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Feb. 15, 2011.
    
    Filed March 15, 2011.
    Paul Shearman Allen, Esquire, Brian W. Shaughnessy, Esquire, Law Firm of Paul Allen & Associates, Washington, DC, for Petitioner.
    Richard M. Evans, Esquire, Assistant Director, Allen W. Hausman, Esquire, OIL, Andrew Jacob Oliveira, Esquire, Trial, 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: CANBY, FERNANDEZ, and M. 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

Balwinder Singh Malhi, 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, and review de novo questions of law. Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 894 (9th Cir.2003). We deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Malhi’s motion to reopen as time- and number-barred because the successive motion was filed more than three years after the BIA’s June 10, 2003, order dismissing his underlying appeal. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2) (only one motion to reopen permitted and the motion generally must be filed within 90 days of the final order). It follows that Malhi’s due process claim fails. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir.2000) (requiring error and prejudice for a petitioner to prevail on a due process claim).

Malhi’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

We deny Malhi’s motion to supplement the record, see 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(A), and we deny respondent’s motion to dismiss.

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