Case Name: Kuldip SINGH, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-04-30
Citations: 230 F. App'x 747
Docket Number: No. 06-70650
Parties: Kuldip SINGH, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: O’SCANNLAIN, GRABER and BEA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 230
Pages: 747–748

Head Matter:
Kuldip SINGH, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 06-70650.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted April 16, 2007 .
Filed April 30, 2007.
Kuldip Singh, San Jose, CA, pro se.
Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, GRABER and BEA, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Kuldip Singh, a native and citizen of India, seeks review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Reviewing for abuse of discretion, Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 894 (9th Cir.2003), we deny the petition for review.
The BIA acted within its discretion in denying as untimely Singh's motion to reopen because it was filed approximately two years after the BIA's final removal order, see 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(e)(7)(C)(i) (motion to reopen must be filed within 90 days of final administrative removal order), and Singh failed to present new and material evidence of changed conditions in India, see 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii) (no time limit on motion to reopen to apply for asylum based on changed country conditions).
We do not consider Singh's contentions regarding the agency's order denying asylum, which we upheld in Singh v. Gonzales, 126 Fed.Appx. 860.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.