Case Name: Baljit SINGH, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-11-25
Citations: 623 F. App'x 443
Docket Number: No. 13-72676
Parties: Baljit SINGH, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: TASHIMA, OWENS, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 623
Pages: 443–444

Head Matter:
Baljit SINGH, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 13-72676.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Nov. 18, 2015.
Filed Nov. 25, 2015.
Elias Z. Shamieh, Law Offices of Sham-ieh and Temieden, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.
OIL, Brooke Maurer, Trial, 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: TASHIMA, OWENS, and FRIEDLAND, 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
Baljit Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for 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. We review for abuse of discretion the BIA's denial of a motion to reopen. Toufighi v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 988, 992 (9th Cir.2008). We deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Singh's motion to reopen because it was filed more than four years after his order of removal became final, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Singh failed to establish materially changed circumstances in India as to qualify for the regulatory exception to the time limitation for motions to reopen, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 987-90 (9th Cir.2010) (evidence must be "qualitatively different" to warrant reopening); see also Toufighi, 538 F.3d at 996-97 (evidence was immaterial in light of prior adverse credibility determination); Go v. Holder, 744 F.3d 604, 609 (9th Cir.2014) (holding that "the procedural requirements specified in 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c) apply to CAT claims").
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.