FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION APR 14 2010 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

KHUSHVIR SINGH SUMAN; et al., No. 07-74600 Petitioners, Agency Nos. A095-410-284 A095-410-285 v. A095-410-286 A095-410-287 ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent. MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted April 5, 2010 ** Before: RYMER, McKEOWN, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.

Khushvir Singh Suman, Savita Suman, and their children, citizens of India, petition pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying their motion to reopen removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Reviewing for abuse of discretion, Malty v. Ashcroft, 381 F.3d 942, 945 (9th Cir. 2004), we deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners’ motion to reopen because the motion was filed more than three years after the BIA’s order dismissing the underlying appeal, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and petitioners failed to demonstrate materially changed circumstances in India to qualify for the regulatory exception to the filing deadline, see id. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); see also Malty, 381 F.3d at 945 (“The critical question is . . . whether circumstances have changed sufficiently that a petitioner who previously did not have a legitimate claim for asylum now has a well-founded fear of future persecution.”).

Petitioners’ remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

2 07-74600