N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT JAGTAR SINGH, Pe titione r, v. LORETTA E. LYNC H, Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R

e sponde n t . No. 12-72584 Age n c y No. A079-287-634 M EM O R ANDUM *

On Pe tition for Re vie w of a n Orde r of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls Subm itte d Oc tobe r 20, 2015 * * San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : PAEZ, M U R GUIA, a nd HUR W ITZ, C i rc uit Judge s. Ja gta r Singh (“ Singh” ) pe titions for re vie w of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls’ (“ B IA” ) de c ision de ny ing his m otion to re ope n proc e e dings for a s y lum , withholding of rem o v a l, a nd re lie f unde r the C onve ntion Aga inst Torture(“ C AT” ). W e de ny the pe tition. 

# FIL ED NOV 10 2015 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S . CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2).1. Singh doe s not dispute tha t his m otion to re ope n wa s untim e ly . Inste a d, he argue s tha

t he is e x c use d from

the nine ty -day

tim e lim it. Singh doe s not, howe ve r, a lle ge e vide nc e of “ c ha

nge d c ountry

c onditions”

tha t “ is m ate ria l a

nd wa s not ava ila ble an d would not ha

ve be e n disc ove re d or pre se nte d at the pre v ious proc e e ding.” 1 Se e 8 U.S.C . § 1229a (c )(7)(C )(ii); 8 C .F.R . § 1003.2(c )(3)(ii). 2. Singh a sse rts tha

t two individua

ls fra udule ntly pre p are d his a s y l um a pplic ation, a

nd he now se e ks to a

pply for a sy lum

unde r the fa c ts he a lle ge d in a pre v ious a sy lum

a p plic ation tha

t he file d in C ana da . B ut this doe s not c onstitute

“ c h ange d c ountry

c onditions.”

First, the grounds for Singh’ s m otion re late only to his pe rsona l c irc um sta

nc e s, whic h do not provide a ba sis to e xc use the nine ty -day de a dline . Se e C

h e n v . Muk

ase y , 524 F.3d 1028, 1031-34 (9th C ir. 2008). Se c ond, the c irc um s ta

nc e s surrounding the

filing of Singh’ s initia l a sy l um a pplic ation a

re fa c t s tha t c ould ha ve be e n disc ove re d or pre se n te d at the prior he aring. Inde e d, the m a in foc u s of the m e rits he aring wa s the ve ry fra udule nt c onduc t tha

t Singh now se e k s to re ly on in his motion to re ope n. Whe n give n the opportunity

by the IJ, Singh c ould ha

ve a b andone d his fra

udule nt a pplic ation a

nd proc e e de d unde r the

1 C ontra ry to Singh’ s a

rgum e nts, the sa

m e tim e re s tric tions a

pply re ga rdle ss of whe the r the m otion to re ope n se e ks to re vive a c l a im unde r the Im

m igration a

nd Nationa l ity

Ac t o r unde r C A T. Se e Go v . Holde r , 744 F.3d 604, 609 (9th C ir. 2014). 2fa c t s a l le g e d in his C a na dia n a pplic ation. Inste a d, Singh stood by his fra udule nt a pplic ation. In sum , Singh fa ile d to de m onstra te “ c ha nge d c ountry

c onditions”

tha t would e xc use the untim e ly filing of his m

otion to re o p e n. No othe r e xc e ption to the n ine ty -day

tim e lim it a

pplie s, a nd Singh did not a

rgue tha t he wa s e n title d to e quita ble tolling. W e the re fore c onc lude tha t the B IA did not a

buse its disc re tion in de ny ing Singh’ s m otion to re ope n a s untim e l y . 3. Singh’ s a d ditiona l a rgum e nts a

re without m e rit. DE NIE D.

3