Case Name: Harjinder SINGH, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-10-03
Citations: 698 F. App'x 369
Docket Number: No. 14-73793
Parties: Harjinder SINGH, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: SILVERMAN, TALLMAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 698
Pages: 369–370

Head Matter:
Harjinder SINGH, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 14-73793
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted September 26, 2017
FILED OCTOBER 3, 2017
Jaspreet Singh, Esquire, Law Office of Jaspreet Singh, Jackson Heights, NY, for Petitioner.
OIL, Jesi J. Carlson, Senior Litigation Counsel, Dawn S. Conrad, 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: SILVERMAN, TALLMAN, and N.R. SMITH, 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
Harjinder 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 where it was untimely and number-barred, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and where Singh failed to establish materially changed circumstances in India to qualify for the regulatory exception to the time and number limitations for motions to reopen, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); Toufighi v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 988, 992 (9th Cir. 2008) (evidence immaterial in light of prior adverse credibility determination).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.