
    Sohan SINGH; Bakhash Kaur, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 11-71025.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted July 24, 2013.
    
    Filed July 31, 2013.
    Saad Ahmad, Fremont, CA, for Petitioners.
    Drew Brinkman, OIL, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: ALARCÓN, CLIFTON, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Sohan Singh and Bakhash Kaur, natives and citizens of India, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying their motion to reopen removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for an 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 denied petitioners’ motion as untimely, and found they failed to show changed circumstances to qualify for the regulatory exception provided in 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii), where some of their evidence related in part to Singh’s prior claim, which was found not credible, and the other evidence did not establish changed circumstances in India with regard to the treatment of politically active Sikhs. Petitioners contend the BIA abused its discretion by failing to take into account country conditions evidence, by failing to consider petitioners’ evidence not tainted by the prior adverse credibility finding in conjunction with the country reports, and by discounting their credible evidence. Because these contentions are not supported by the record, petitioners have not shown the BIA abused its discretion in denying their motion to reopen. See He v. Gonzales, 501 F.3d 1128, 1131 (9th Cir.2007) (“The decision of the BIA should be left undisturbed unless it is arbitrary, irrational, or contrary to law.”) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

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.
     