Case ID: f-appx_653/html/0886-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Lakhveer SINGH, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 14-70261
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted May 24, 2016 
    
    Filed June 2, 2016
    Jaspreet Singh, Esquire, Attorney, Law Office of Jaspreet Singh, Jackson Heights, NY, for Petitioner.
    OIL, Tracey McDonald, 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: REINHARDT, W. FLETCHER, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Lakhveer Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his third 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, Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir.2010), and we deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Singh’s third motion to reopen because it was untimely and number-barred, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Singh failed to demonstrate material changed circumstances in India to qualify for a regulatory exception for filing a motion to reopen, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(1), (3)(ii); Najmabadi, 597 F.3d at 991-92 (evidence must be qualitatively different” to warrant reopening); Patel v. INS, 741 F.2d 1134, 1137 (9th Cir.1984) (“[I]n the context of a' motion to reopen, the BIA is not required to consider allegations unsupported by affidavits or other evidentiary material.”).

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