T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pa ne l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l a r g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T HA R S I MR AN S I NG H, P et i t i on er , v. E R I C H . H O L D E R , J r ., A tto rn e yG e n e r a l, R e s p o n d e n t. N o. 08- 75173 A ge nc yN o. A 078- 974- 211 ME MOR AN DU M *

O n P e t i t i on f

orR e vi e w of

a n O r de rof

the B o a r do f I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls S ubm i tt e d J a nua ry17, 2012 ** B efo re: L E A V Y , T A L L M A N , an dC A L L A H A N , C i rcu i tJu d g es. H a r s i m r a n S i ngh, ana t i ve a nd c i t i z e n of I ndi a , pe t i t i ons f

orr e vi e w of

the B oard of Im m i grat i on A pp ea l s’ (“ B IA ”) order denyi ng hi s m ot i on t o reopen r e m ova l pr oc e e di ngs . W e ha ve j ur i s di c t i on unde r8 U . S . C . § 1252. W e r e vi e w f or 

# FI LED JAN 24 2 012 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS08- 75173 2 ab u s e o f d is c r e tio n th e d e n ia l o f am o tio n to r e o p e n , N

aj m ab ad iv. H

older , 597 F . 3 d9 8 3 , 9 8 6 ( 9 th C i r . 2 0 1 0 ) , a n dwe d e n yth e p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w. T he B IA di d n otabuse i t s di sc re t i on by denyi ng S i ng h’ s m ot i on t o reopen as un t i m el y w here the m ot i on w as fi l ed ov erfour ye ar s a ft erthe B IA ’ s f i nal order, se e 8 C . F . R . § 1003. 2( c ) ( 2) , a nd S i ngh f a i l e d t o pr e s e nts uf

f i c i e nte vi de nc e of c h a n g e dc i r c u ms t a n c e s i n I n d i at o q u a l i f yf o rth e r e g u l a t o rye x c e p t i o n t o th e t i me lim it f o rf ilin g m o tio n s to r e o p e n , se e 8 C .F .R . § 1 0 0 3 .2 ( c ) ( 3 ) ( ii) ; M al t y v . A s h c r o ft , 38 1 F . 3d 94 2, 94 5 (9th C i r. 20 04 ) ( “ T he cr i t i ca l qu es t i on i s . . . w hether c i r c um s t a nc e s ha ve c ha nge d s uf f i c i e nt l ytha tape t i t i one rw ho pr e vi ous l ydi d not have a l egi t i m at e c l ai m for a sy l um no w has aw el l -f ou nd ed fe arof future pers ec ut i on . ”) . W e r ej ec tS i ng h’ s c on t ent i on thatthe B IA fa i l ed t o con si der e vi dence be c aus e he ha s notove r c om e the pr e s um pt i on tha tthe B I A r e vi e w e d the r e c or d. See Ferna ndezv. G on zales , 439 F . 3d 592, 603 ( 9th C i r . 2006) . S i ngh’ s c ont e nt i on tha tthe B I A appl i e d ahi ghe rs t a nda r d i s be l i e d bythe r e c or d. F i na l l y , w e de c l i ne t o r e c ons i de rS i ngh’ s c ont e nt i ons r e ga r di ng the i m m i gr a t i on j udge ’ s a dve r s e c r e di bi l i tyde t e rm i na t i on be c aus e thi s c ourta l r e a dy de c i de d tha ti s s ue i n Si ng h v. G on zales , 2 0 6 F e d . A p p x . 7 0 7 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ) . See Merri t t v. M acke y , 932 F . 2d 1317, 1320 ( 9th C i r . 1991) ( e xpl a i ni ng tha tunde rthe08- 75173 3 “ l aw of the ca se do ctri ne, ” one panel of an appel l at e c ou rtw i l l no tre consi der qu es t i on s w hi ch another panel has dec i ded o n a pri or appeal i n the sam e c as e) . P E T I T I ON F OR RE V I E W DE NI E D.