Case Name: Amrit 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: 2010-07-29
Citations: 389 F. App'x 720
Docket Number: No. 07-73428
Parties: Amrit SINGH, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: B. FLETCHER, REINHARDT, and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 389
Pages: 720–720

Head Matter:
Amrit SINGH, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 07-73428.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted July 19, 2010.
Filed July 29, 2010.
Amrit Singh, San Jose, CA, pro se.
Marshall Tamor Golding, Esquire, DOJ-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: B. FLETCHER, REINHARDT, and WARDLAW, 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
Amrit Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order denying Singh's second motion to reopen removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, see Cano-Merida v. INS, 311 F.3d 960, 964 (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 and numerically barred because it was Singh's second motion to reopen and he filed it over five years after the BIA's final order of removal, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c), and Singh failed to establish changed circumstances in India to qualify for the regulatory exception to the time and number limitations, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(h); Malty v. Ashcroft, 381 F.3d 942, 945-46 (9th Cir.2004).
Finally, we reject Singh's contention that the BIA failed to consider evidence because he has not overcome the presumption that the BIA reviewed the record. See Fernandez v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 592, 603 (9th Cir.2006). Singh's contention that the BIA failed to address his arguments is belied by the agency's order.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.