Case Name: Hardev SINGH, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-02-15
Citations: 266 F. App'x 706
Docket Number: No. 07-73669
Parties: Hardev SINGH, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: WALLACE, LEAVY and RYMER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 266
Pages: 706–707

Head Matter:
Hardev SINGH, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 07-73669.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 11, 2008 .
Filed Feb. 15, 2008.
Amy N. Gell, Gell & Gell, New York, NY, for Petitioner.
Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Rosanne M. Perry, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: WALLACE, LEAVY and RYMER, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
This is a petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order denying petitioner's untimely motion to reopen proceedings based on changed country conditions.
Respondent's unopposed motion for summary disposition is granted because the questions raised by this petition for review are so insubstantial as not to require further argument. See United States v. Hooton, 693 F.2d 857, 858 (9th Cir.1982) (per curiam) (stating standard). The BIA did not abuse its discretion when it denied petitioner's motion to reopen. See Lara-Torres v. Ashcroft, 383 F.3d 968, 972 (9th Cir.2004), amended by 404 F.3d 1105 (9th Cir.2005) (holding that BIA denials of motions to reopen or reconsider are reviewed for abuse of discretion). Specifically, petitioner's new country condition evidence would not make a difference in the prior outcome of petitioner's applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii). Accordingly, this petition for review is denied.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.