
    Gurjit KAUR, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 08-75086.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted April 17, 2012.
    
    Filed April 23, 2012.
    Hardeep Singh Rai, Indus Law Group LLP, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.
    Rebecca Ariel Hoffberg, Esquire, OIL, Mona Maria Yousif, Carol Federighi, Esquire, Senior Litigation Counsel, 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: LEAVY, PAEZ, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Gurjit Kaur, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying her motion to reopen removal proceedings. 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 in denying Kaur’s motion to reopen as untimely where the motion was filed over four years after the BIA’s final decision, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Kaur 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); Toufighi, 538 F.3d at 996-97 (requiring movant to produce material evidence that conditions in the country of nationality had changed). Kaur’s contention that the BIA failed to adequately explain its reasoning is belied by the record. See Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir.2010) (the BIA “does not have to write an exegesis on every contention”).

Further, we decline to consider Kaur’s contentions regarding the immigration judge’s adverse credibility determination because the court previously rejected them in Kaur v. Mukasey, 268 Fed.Appx. 628 (9th Cir.2008). See Merritt v. Mackey, 932 F.2d 1317, 1320 (9th Cir.1991) (explaining that 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.
     