Case Name: Baldev 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: 2013-01-16
Citations: 504 F. App'x 625
Docket Number: No. 11-71893
Parties: Baldev SINGH, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: SILVERMAN, BEA, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 504
Pages: 625–626

Head Matter:
Baldev SINGH, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 11-71893.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Jan. 15, 2013.
Filed Jan. 16, 2013.
Baldev Singh, Yuba City, CA, pro se.
Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Daniel Shieh, Esquire, Trial, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: SILVERMAN, BEA, and NGUYEN, 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
Baldev Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order denying his motion to reopen. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen. Toufighi v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 988, 992 (9th Cir. 2008). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Singh's motion to reopen because Singh did not demonstrate that the evidence he submitted with his motion was new and previously unavailable. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(1) (evidence offered with a motion to reopen must have been unavailable and unable to have been discovered or presented at the former hearing); see also Toufighi, 538 F.3d at 996. Contrary to Singh's contention, the agency did not rely on general country conditions to deny his claim.
We lack jurisdiction to review Singh's contentions regarding the immigration judge and his hearing, as well as his contentions regarding a fear of harm as an ex-felon and a fear due to his human rights political opinion, because he did not exhaust them to the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir.2004).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.