Case Name: Joga 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: 2013-08-16
Citations: 538 F. App'x 770
Docket Number: No. 11-73616
Parties: Joga SINGH, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 538
Pages: 770–771

Head Matter:
Joga SINGH, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 11-73616.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Aug. 14, 2013.
Filed Aug. 16, 2013.
Peter Singh, Esquire, Peter Singh & Associates, P.C., Fresno, CA, for Petitioner.
Regina Byrd, Esquire, OIL, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: SCHROEDER, GRABER, and PAEZ, 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
Joga Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board of Immi gration Appeals' ("BIA") order denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the BIA's denial of a motion to reopen. Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir.2010). We deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Singh's motion to reopen as untimely where the motion was filed over three years after the BIA's final order, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Singh failed to present sufficient evidence of changed circumstances in India to qualify for the regulatory exception to the time limit for filing motions to reopen, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); 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.").
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provid ed by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.