
    Prabhijit Singh BHULLAR, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 12-72084
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted September 26, 2017 
    
    Filed October 2, 2017
    Kyle Jordan Howard, Esquire, Kyle J. Howard, Valley Immigration Law Group, Inc., Fresno, CA, for Petitioner
    OIL, Joanna L. Watson, Sheri Robyn Glaser, Trial Attorneys, Ernesto Horacio Molina, Jr., Esquire, Senior Litigation Counsel, DOJ—U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent
    Before: SILVERMAN, TALLMAN, 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

Prabhijit Singh Bhullar, 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 under 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 the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Bhullar’s motion to reopen where he filed it more than 90 days after the BIA’s final administrative decision, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and where he failed to establish materially changed circumstances in India to qualify for the regulatory exception to the time limitations for motions to reopen, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3); Najmabadi, 597 F.3d at 991-92 (BIA did not abuse its discretion where petitioner failed to introduce material evidence).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
     