N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT GURPAR TAP SINGH,

Pe t i tione r, v. M ERR IC K B . GARLAND, Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R e sponde nt. No. 20-73659 Age n c y No. A200-943-733 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 Fe brua

ry 7, 2022 ** Se attle , W a s hington B e fore : B YB EE a

n d C HR ISTEN, C irc uit Judge s , a nd SELNA, *** Distric t Judge . Gurpa rta p Singh, a

native and c itiz e n of India , pe titions for a re vie w of the 

# F IL ED FEB 24 2022 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 Ninth C irc uit R

ule 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 oral a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).

* * * The Honora

ble Ja m e s V. Se lna , Unite d State s Distric t Judge for the C e ntra l Distric t of C a lifornia , sitting by de signa tion.B oa

rd of Im m igration Appe a l s’ (B IA) orde r de ny ing his motion to re ope n re m ova l proc e e dings. This c ourt pre viously de nie d re v ie w of the B IA’ s de c i sion a ffirm ing an im m igration judge ’ s de n ia l of Singh’ s origina l a pplic ation in whic h he a

pplie d for a s y lum , withholding of re m ova l, a nd re lie f unde r the C onve ntion Aga inst Torture (C AT). Singh v . W hitak e r , 750 F. App’ x 574 (9th C i r. 2019). Singh se e ks re ope n ing so tha

t he m a y file a ne w a pplic ation for the se sa

m e thre e form s of re lie f ba se d upon wha

t he c onte nds a

re ne w c irc um sta

nc e s giving rise

to a c re dible fe ar of future pe rse c ution. W e de ny Singh’ s pe tition for re v ie w . 1 W e have jurisdic tion to re vie w a n a ppe a l from

the B IA’ s de nia l of a

m otion to re ope n pursua

nt to 8 U.S.C . § 1252. Mata v . Ly nc h , 576 U.S. 143, 147–48 (2015). W e re v i e w suc h de nia l s for a buse of disc re tion. IN

S v . Dohe rty , 502 U.S. 314, 323 (1992). “ T his C o urt de fe rs to the B o ard’ s e xe rc ise of disc re tion unle ss it a c te d a rbitra rily , irrationa l ly

or c ontra ry to la w.” Toufighi v . Muk

ase y , 538 F.3d 988, 992 (9th C ir. 2008) (c ita tions omitte d). The B IA’ s de te rm inations of pure ly le ga l que s tions a

re re vie we d de novo, a

nd its fa c tua l findings a

re re vie we d for substa ntia l e vide nc e . N

ajmabadi v . Holde r , 597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th C ir. 2010).

“ [O] ur re vie w is limi te d to the a c tua l grounds re l ie d upon by the B IA.” Id.

1 B e c a use the pa rtie s a re fam ilia r with thefa c ts a

nd proc e dura l history , we do not re c ount the m

he re . 2(quoting Ramire z-Altamirano v. Holde r , 563 F.3d 800, 804 (9th C ir. 2009), ov e rrule d on othe r grounds by N une z-Re y e s v . Holde r , 646 F.3d 684 (9th C ir. 2011)). A m o tion to re o pe n is ge ne ra lly pre c lude d if it is file d m ore tha n nine ty da y s a fte r the fina l a dm inistra

tive de c ision is re nde re d. 8 U.S.C . § 1229a (c )(7)(C )(i); 8 C .F.R . § 1003.2(c )(2). The re is a n e xc e ption to this tim

e -bar for a

pplic ants who produc e pre viously

una va ila ble e vide n c e of m ate ria lly c ha nge d c o untry

c onditions that would, whe n c onside re d toge the r with thea pplic ant’ s prior e vide n c e , e sta blish prim a fa c ie e ligibility

for the re lie f sought. Toufighi , 538 F.3d a t 993–94; se e also Go v . Holde r , 744 F.3d 604, 609 (9th C ir. 2014) (e x c e ption a va ila ble for C AT c la im s in a ddition to a sy l um and withholding c la i m s). “ [T] he c ha n ge d c ountry c onditions e xc e ption is c onc e rne d with two points in tim e : the c i rc um sta

nc e s of the c ountry at the tim e of the pe titione r’ s pre vious he aring, a nd thoseat the tim e of the m otion to re o pe n . ” Salim v . Ly nc h , 831 F.3d 1133, 1137 (9th C ir. 2016). In orde r to qua lify for the e xc e ption, “ the e vide nc e subm itte d with them o tion to re ope n m ust be ‘ qua lita

tive ly diffe re nt from

the e vide nc e pre se nte d at [the ] a sy lum he aring.’ ” Id. (a lte ra tion in origina l) (quoting Malty

v . Ashc roft , 381 F.3d 942, 945 (9th C ir. 2004)).

3B e c a

use Singh’ s m otion to re ope n wa s untim e ly , he sought to a va il him se lf of this e x c e ption by subm i tting e vide nc e with his motion tha t, he c l a im e d, de m onstra

te d m ate ria lly

c ha nge d c ountry

c o nditions. The

B IA re j e c te d Singh’ s c la im s, inste a d c o nc luding tha t his ne w a lle gations m e re ly re fle c te d a

c ontinua tion of the sa m e c onditions he

ha d a lle ge d

during his he aring be fore the im m igration judge . The B IA did not e rr in de te rm ining tha t Singh fa ile d to e sta

blish m at e ria lly c ha nge d c ountry

c onditions to qua

lify for the e xc e ption. Singh inc lude d two ge ne ra liz e d c ountry

re ports with his m

otion to re ope n tha

t he a s se rte d de m onstra

te d de te riorating c onditions in India . Ye t Singh ha d introduc e d e xte nsive doc um e nta

ry e vide n c e re fle c ting thesa m e kinds of intole

ranc e for re ligious a

nd politic a l m i noritie s, c orruption, a nd viole nc e during his he aring be fore the im

m igration judge . Se e N

ajmabadi , 597 F.3d a

t 989–90 (re quiring

“ individualiz e d re le va

nc y ” rat h e r tha n e vide nc e that “ sim

ply re c ounts ge ne ra liz e d c onditions”

and noting new c ountry

c onditions re

ports we re too simila

r to those subm itte d pre viously

to c onstitute

e vide nc e of m at e ria l c ha

n ge s). Additionally , while Singh inc l ude d se v e ra l a ffidavits with his m otion to re ope n c o nta ining a lle gations of ne w polic e thre at s a ga inst his life an d viole n c e towa

rds his fa m ily in India , he ha d a lso proffe re d sim ila r e vide n c e during his he aring be fore the 4im

m igration judge . Thus, theB IA prope rly c onc lude d tha

t Singh’ s ne w e vide nc e fa ile d to e sta

blish qualita

tive c ha nge s in c ountry

c o nditions. B e c a use we hold theB IA prope rly de t e rm i ne d tha

t Singh fa ile d to de m onstra

te m ate ria l c ha

nge s in c ountry

c o nditions, we

do not a d dre ss a dditional grounds offe re d by the B IA for its de nia l of Singh’ s untim e l y m otion. PE T IT IO N FO R RE V IE WDE NIE D .

5