Case Name: Balraj 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: 2013-03-20
Citations: 512 F. App'x 713
Docket Number: No. 11-71725
Parties: Balraj SINGH, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: PREGERSON, REINHARDT, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 512
Pages: 713–714

Head Matter:
Balraj SINGH, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 11-71725.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted March 12, 2013.
Filed March 20, 2013.
Balraj Singh, Artesia, CA, pro se.
Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, OIL, Corey Leigh Farrell, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: PREGERSON, REINHARDT, and W. FLETCHER, 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
Balraj Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals ("BIA") order denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings. Our jurisdiction is governed by 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), and we deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Singh's motion to reopen as untimely because the motion was filed almost seven years after the BIA's final order, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Singh failed to present material evidence of changed circumstances in India to qualify for the regulatory exception to the time limitation for filing a motion to reopen, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); Shin v. Mukasey, 547 F.3d 1019, 1025 (9th Cir.2008)("Aliens who seek to remand or reopen proceedings to pursue relief bear a 'heavy burden' of proving that, if proceedings were reopened, the new evidence would likely change the result in the case.")(quoting Matter of Coelho, 20 I. & N. Dec. 464, 473 (BIA 1992)).
We reject Singh's contentions that the BIA failed to consider fully Singh's arguments and evidence or to explain adequately its decision. See Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir.2010).
We lack jurisdiction to review any challenge Singh raises to the BIA's underlying order denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture, because the petition is not timely as to that order. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1)(petitions for review must be filed within 30 days of the final order of removal); Singh v. INS, 315 F.3d 1186, 1188 (9th Cir.2003).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.