Case Name: Rajvir 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: 2015-04-16
Citations: 599 F. App'x 794
Docket Number: No. 09-70603
Parties: Rajvir SINGH, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: FISHER, TALLMAN, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 599
Pages: 794–794

Head Matter:
Rajvir SINGH, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 09-70603.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted April 7, 2015.
Filed April 16, 2015.
Rajvir Singh, San Jose, CA, pro se.
Trade Nicole Jones, Trial, Oil, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: FISHER, TALLMAN, and NGUYEN, 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
Rajvir 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), and we deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Singh's untimely motion to reopen, because it considered the record and Singh's evidence, and acted within its broad discretion in determining it was insufficient to warrant reopening. See Singh v. INS, 295 F.3d 1037, 1039 (9th Cir.2002) (the BIA's denial of a motion to reopen shall be reversed only if it is "arbitrary, irrational, or contrary to law."); see also Shin v. Mukasey, 547 F.3d 1019, 1025 (9th Cir.2008) (petitioner failed to satisfy " '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)).
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.