Case Name: Kuldeep 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: 2014-05-21
Citations: 574 F. App'x 779
Docket Number: No. 12-73454
Parties: Kuldeep SINGH, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: CLIFTON, BEA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 574
Pages: 779–780

Head Matter:
Kuldeep SINGH, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 12-73454.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted May 13, 2014.
Filed May 21, 2014.
Garish Sarin, Esquire, Law Offices of Garish Sarin, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.
Benjamin Zeitlin, Virginia Lum, 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: CLIFTON, BEA, and WATFORD, 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
Kuldeep 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. Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir.2010). We deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion by denying Singh's motion to reopen as untimely because the motion was filed more than nine years after the BIA's final order, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Singh failed to demonstrate materially changed conditions 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); Najmabadi, 597 F.3d at 987 (evidence must be "qualitatively different" from the evidence presented at the previous hearing). We reject Singh's contention that the BIA "omitted" and "misstated" salient facts in denying his motion. See id. at 990 ("the Board adequately considered [petitioner's] evidence and sufficiently announced its decision").
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.