Case ID: f-appx_623/html/0460-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Rajwinder SINGH, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 13-71876.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Nov. 18, 2015.
    
    Filed Nov. 25, 2015.
    Genet Getachew, Law Office of Genet Getachew, Brooklyn, N.Y., for Petitioner.
    Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Nicole N. Murley, Oil, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: TASHIMA, OWENS, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Rajwinder 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 two 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 his arguments and evidence. See Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 990-91 (9th Cir.2010).

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