Case Name: Balkar 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: 2010-07-13
Citations: 387 F. App'x 692
Docket Number: No. 07-74056
Parties: Balkar SINGH, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: ALARCÓN, LEAVY, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 387
Pages: 692–692

Head Matter:
Balkar SINGH, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 07-74056.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted June 29, 2010.
Filed July 13, 2010.
Ben Loveman, Esquire, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.
Terri Leon-Benner, Esquire, Trial, Robbin Kinmonth Blaya, Esquire, Trial, Jennifer Paisner, DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: ALARCÓN, LEAVY, and GRABER, 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
Balkar Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order denying his second motion to reopen. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion, Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir.2010), and we deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion by denying Singh's motion to reopen as untimely where the motion was filed more than 90 days after the BIA's final order, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Singh failed to establish changed country conditions in India to qualify for the regulatory exception to the time limitation, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); see also Malty v. Ashcroft, 381 F.3d 942, 945 (9th Cir.2004) ("The critical question is . whether circumstances have changed sufficiently that a petitioner who previously did not have a legitimate claim for asylum now has a well-founded fear of future persecution.").
Singh's contention that the BIA failed to provide a reasoned explanation for its denial is belied by the record.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.