Kaur v. Blanche

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AUG 18 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT RAJWINDER KAUR; G. S.; M. K., No. 25-4203 Agency Nos. Petitioners, A241-721-918 A241-721-916 v. A241-721-917 TODD BLANCHE, Attorney General, MEMORANDUM* Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted August 14, 2026** Reno, Nevada Before: BADE, FORREST, and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges.

Rajwinder Kaur and her minor children, natives and citizens of India, petition for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denying their motion to reopen proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1), and we deny the petition.

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

The BIA denied Petitioners’ motion on timeliness grounds. A motion to reopen ordinarily must be filed “within 90 days of the date of entry of a final administrative order of removal.” 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i). This time limit does not apply, however, “if the basis of the motion is to apply for [asylum or withholding of removal] and is based on changed country conditions arising in the country of nationality or the country to which removal has been ordered, if such evidence is material and was not available and would not have been discovered or presented at the previous proceeding.” 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii). “The newly submitted evidence must be ‘qualitatively different’ from the evidence presented at the previous hearing,” and “[e]vidence that simply recounts previous conditions presented at a previous hearing or that is voluminous but redundant is not sufficient to show a change in country conditions.” Agonafer v. Sessions, 859 F.3d 1198, 1204 (9th Cir. 2017) (quoting Malty v. Ashcroft, 381 F.3d 942, 945 (9th Cir. 2004)). Additionally, a petitioner does not qualify for this exception if her motion “‘relies solely on a change in personal circumstances,’ without also providing sufficient evidence of related changed country conditions.” Rodriguez v. Garland, 990 F.3d 1205, 1209 (9th Cir. 2021) (quoting Chandra v. Holder, 751 F.3d 1034, 1037 (9th Cir. 2014)).

Petitioners’ new country-conditions evidence is not qualitatively different from the country-conditions evidence previously presented. For example, as part

2 25-4203 of their original evidence, Petitioners submitted a report from the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom describing how in 2022 the Indian government’s policies “that negatively affect Muslims, Christians, Sikhs, Dalits, and Adivasis (indigenous and scheduled tribal people)” had “enabled intolerance of religious minorities and exacerbated communal divides, resulting in violence, deaths, injuries, sexual assault, destruction of property including houses of worship, arbitrary detentions, harassment including online harassment, and social boycotting.” In the same vein, Petitioners submitted as part of their new evidence a report from the Human Rights Watch stating that in 2023 “[t]he Indian government, led by Prime Minister Narendra Modi of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), persisted with policies that discriminate and stigmatize religious and other minorities,” leading to “increasing incidents of communal violence.” The new country-conditions evidence thus merely describes conditions similar to those detailed by her previous submission—a continuity of conditions rather than a change in conditions. Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 989 (9th Cir. 2010).

The other new evidence submitted describes how BJP officials and police are harassing Petitioners’ family members about their whereabouts. This evidence describes only a change in Petitioners’ personal circumstances and is therefore insufficient to exempt their motion from the 90-day time bar. Rodriguez, 990 F.3d at 1209. Accordingly, the BIA did not err in denying Petitioners’ motion as

3 25-4203 untimely.

DENIED.

4 25-4203