Case Name: Sarbjit 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: 2009-07-06
Citations: 328 F. App'x 500
Docket Number: No. 06-70386
Parties: Sarbjit SINGH, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: PAEZ, TALLMAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 328
Pages: 500–500

Head Matter:
Sarbjit SINGH, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 06-70386.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted June 16, 2009.
Filed July 6, 2009.
Martin Avila Robles, Esq., Law Office of Martin Resendez Guajardo, P.C., San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.
Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Arthur L. Rabin, Esq., Stephen J. Flynn, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit. Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: PAEZ, TALLMAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Sarbjit Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order denying his motion to reopen to apply for adjustment of status. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, Perez v. Mukasey, 516 F.3d 770, 773 (9th Cir.2008), and we deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Singh's motion as untimely because it was filed more than three years after the BIA issued its final order. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2); Dela Cruz v. Mukasey, 532 F.3d 946, 947 (9th Cir.2008) (per curiam) ("The filing of a petition for review in this court does not toll the statutory time limit for filing a motion to reopen before the BIA.").
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.