Case Name: Baljit SINGH, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-01-03
Citations: 161 F. App'x 373
Docket Number: No. 04-60594
Parties: Baljit SINGH, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 161
Pages: 373–374

Head Matter:
Baljit SINGH, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 04-60594.
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Decided Jan. 3, 2006.
Baljit Singh, Astoria, NY, pro se.
Thomas Ward Hussey, Director, Margaret Kuehne Taylor, U.S. Department of Justice Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Kenneth L. Pasquarell, Acting District Director, U.S. Immigration & Naturalization Service District Directors Office, Carol Federighi, San Antonio, TX, U.S. Department of Justice Civil Division Immigration Litigation, Alberto R. Gonzales, U.S. Department of Justice, Caryl G. Thompson, Washington, DC, U.S. Immigration & Naturalization Service District Directors Office, M. Jocelyn Lopez Wright, New Orleans, LA, U.S. Department of Justice Department of Homeland Security, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before JOLLY, DAVIS and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Baljit Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions this court to review a decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denying a motion to reopen removal proceedings. Singh, who is a Sikh and hails from Punjab, argues that conditions in India have changed because the Congress Party, which has historically committed atrocities against the Sikhs, is now in power. He also contends that the original decision denying his applications for asylum and withholding of removal were in error.
Singh has failed to show that there is a reasonable likelihood that he would be granted relief at the reopened hearing. See Guevara Flores v. INS, 786 F.2d 1242, 1247 (5th Cir.1986). He has therefore failed to show that the BIA abused its discretion in denying his motion to reopen. See Pritchett v. INS, 993 F.2d 80, 83 (5th Cir.1993).
Singh's petition for review is DENIED.
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.