
    Manjit KAUR, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 09-71198.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted Sept. 10, 2012.
    
    Filed Sept. 14, 2012.
    Martin Avila Robles, Esquire, Immigration Practice Group, A Professional Corporation, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.
    Christopher McGreal, Margaret Anne O’Donnell, 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: WARDLAW, CLIFTON, 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

Manjit 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 an abuse of discretion the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen. Toufighi v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 988, 992 (9th Cir.2008). 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 order, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Kaur failed to present sufficient evidence of changed circumstances in India to qualify for the regulatory exception to the time limit for filing motions to reopen, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(h). The BIA did not abuse its discretion in concluding that the psychological evaluations did not overcome the prior adverse credibility finding. See Toufighi, 538 F.3d at 996-97 (evidence was irrelevant in light of the agency’s previous adverse credibility findings).

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in not addressing Kaur’s CAT claim separately because Kaur failed to point to any other evidence, apart from her not credible testimony, that would make her new evidence relevant to showing changed conditions in India. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156-57 (9th Cir.2003).

Finally, Kaur’s contentions that the BIA failed to address her equitable tolling argument on the merits and that remand is warranted because the BIA denied her motion as number-barred and did not reach the merits are belied by the record.

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