Case Name: Balbir SINGH, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-02-27
Citations: 222 F. App'x 646
Docket Number: No. 05-71940
Parties: Balbir SINGH, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: BEEZER, FERNANDEZ, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 222
Pages: 646–647

Head Matter:
Balbir SINGH, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 05-71940.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 20, 2007.
Filed Feb. 27, 2007.
Hector M. Roman, Jr., Esq., Roman & Singh, LLP, Jackson Heights, NY, for Petitioner.
Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, David V. Bernal, Attorney, Margaret K. Taylor, Esq. DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Mariclaire Rourke, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: BEEZER, FERNANDEZ, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Balbir 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 to re-apply for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review the BIA's denial of a motion to reopen for abuse of discretion, Rodriguez-Lariz v. INS, 282 F.3d 1218, 1222 (9th Cir.2002), and we deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Singh's motion to reopen as untimely because Singh did not file the motion within 90 days of the BIA's final order of removal, see 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(6)(B), and did not present sufficient evidence of changed circumstances in India to excuse the untimeliness. See Malty v. Ashcroft, 381 F.3d 942, 945 (9th Cir.2004) (holding "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 provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.