Case Name: Harsimran 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: 2014-01-03
Citations: 551 F. App'x 375
Docket Number: No. 11-73378
Parties: Harsimran SINGH, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 551
Pages: 375–375

Head Matter:
Harsimran SINGH, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 11-73378.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 17, 2013.
Filed Jan. 3, 2014.
Robert Bradford Jobe, Esquire, Law Offices of Robert B. Jobe, San Francisco, CA, Babak Pourtavoosi, Pannun the Firm, P.C., Jackson Heights, NY, for Petitioner.
OIL, Kelly J. Walls, Esquire, Trial, 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: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2). Thus, we deny Zhou’s request for oral argument.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Harsimran Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") denial of 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 the Singh's third motion to reopen as untimely and number-barred where the motion was filed more than seven years after the BIA's final administrative order, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Singh failed to establish materially changed circumstances in India to qualify for the regulatory exception to the time and numerical limitations for motions to reopen, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); Najmabadi, 597 F.3d at 987 (new evidence "must be 'qualitatively different' from the evidence presented at the previous hearing"); see also Toufighi v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 988, 996-97 (9th Cir.2008) (BIA did not abuse its discretion in concluding alien failed to establish prima facie eligibility, where motion to reopen was based on underlying claim found not credible).
We reject Singh's contentions that the BIA erred in its treatment of the evidence submitted. See Najmabadi, 597 F.3d at 990-91 (BIA must consider issues raised and announce its decision in a manner sufficient for reviewing court to perceive that it has heard and thought and not merely reacted).
To the extent Singh attempts to challenge the agency's underlying credibility determination, we decline to review this claim because this court already decided the issue in Singh v. Gonzales, 206 Fed.Appx. 707 (9th Cir.2006).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.