Case ID: f-appx_229/html/0469-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Shamsher Singh SHERGILL, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 05-76357.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted April 16, 2007 .
    Filed April 23, 2007.
    Shamsher Singh Shergill, Coman, CA, pro se.
    Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, OIL, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: O’SCANNLAIN, GRABER, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Shamsher Singh Shergill, a native and citizen of India, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen to reapply for asylum based on changed country conditions. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for an abuse of discretion, see Lara-Torres v. Ashcroft, 383 F.3d 968, 972 (9th Cir.2004), amended by 404 F.3d 1105 (9th Cir.2005), and we deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Shergül’s motion to reopen as untimely because he filed it more than a year after the BIA’s June 29, 2004 order, and Shergill failed to demonstrate that he qualified for any exception to the ninety-day time limit. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2). Shergill did not provide sufficient evidence that conditions in India have changed so that he now has a well-founded fear of future persecution. See Malty v. Ashcroft, 381 F.3d 942, 945 (9th Cir.2004) (stating that 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.