Case ID: f-appx_390/html/0700-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Kulwant Singh BAINS, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 08-71591.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted July 19, 2010.
    
    Filed Aug. 2, 2010.
    Peter Singh, Esquire, Peter Singh & Associates, P.C., Fresno, Ca, For Petitioner.
    Oil, Aimee J. Frederickson, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: B. FLETCHER, REINHARDT, and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Kulwant Singh Bains, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order summarily affirming an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his motion to reopen his deportation proceedings conducted in absentia. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Reviewing for abuse of discretion, Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir.2010), we deny the petition for review.

The IJ did not abuse her discretion in denying Bains’ motion to reopen because the. record shows that he was personally served with a hearing notice ordering him to appear on March 26, 1997, see 8 U.S.C. § 1252b(a)(2),(c)(1) (repealed 1996), and because he failed to demonstrate changed circumstances in India, see Malty v. Ashcroft, 381 F.3d 942, 945 (9th Cir.2004) (“The critical question is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.”).

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