Case Name: Surinder SINGH, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-01-20
Citations: 362 F. App'x 762
Docket Number: No. 07-72383
Parties: Surinder SINGH, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: BEEZER, TROTT, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 362
Pages: 762–763

Head Matter:
Surinder SINGH, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 07-72383.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Jan. 11, 2010.
Filed Jan. 20, 2010.
Teresa Salazar, Law Offices of Martin Resendez Guajardo a Professional Corpo ration, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.
Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Lyle D. Jentzer, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: BEEZER, TROTT, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Surinder Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge's decision denying his motion to reopen proceedings held in absentia. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Reviewing for abuse of discretion, Lara-Torres v. Ashcroft, 383 F.3d 968, 972 (9th Cir.2004), we deny the petition for review.
The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Singh's second motion to reopen because he failed to demonstrate the evidence he submitted was previously unavailable. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(3); Bhasin v. Gonzales, 423 F.3d 977, 984 (9th Cir.2005).
Petitioner's remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.