Case ID: f-appx_483/html/0392-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "MEMORANDUM \n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Surinder SINGH, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 10-71033.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Oct. 9, 2012.
    
    Filed Oct. 15, 2012.
    Maleeha Haq, Hardeep Singh Rai, Rai & Associates, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.
    Jesse Lloyd Busen, OIL, 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: RAWLINSON, MURGUIA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. 
        See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Surinder Singh, 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, Toufighi v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 988, 992 (9th Cir.2008), and we deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Singh’s motion to reopen as untimely because the motion was filed over four years after the BIA’s final order, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Singh failed to present material evidence of changed circumstances in India to qualify for the regulatory exception to the time limitation for filing a motion to reopen, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); see also Toufighi, 538 F.3d at 996-97 (underlying adverse credibility determination rendered evidence of changed circumstances immaterial).

We reject Singh’s contentions that the BIA failed to fully consider Singh’s arguments and evidence or to adequately explain its decision. See Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 990-91 (9th Cir. 2010).

Finally, we do not consider the agency’s adverse credibility determination, or its denial of withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture, because these issues were decided by the court in Singh v. Holder, 329 Fed. Appx. 144 (9th Cir. July 17, 2009).

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