Case Name: Gurjeet SINGH, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-06-12
Citations: 237 F. App'x 189
Docket Number: No. 07-70039
Parties: Gurjeet SINGH, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: LEAVY, RYMER and T.G. NELSON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 237
Pages: 189–190

Head Matter:
Gurjeet SINGH, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 07-70039.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted June 4, 2007.
Filed June 12, 2007.
Viney Gupta, Orange, CA, for Petitioner.
Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Daniel E. Goldman, Esq., DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: LEAVY, RYMER and T.G. NELSON, Circuit Judges.
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
This is a petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order denying petitioner's second motion to reopen.
Respondent's motion for summary disposition is granted because the questions raised by this petition for review are so insubstantial as not to require further argument. See United States v. Hooton, 693 F.2d 857, 858 (9th Cir.1982) (per curiam) (stating standard). A party may file only one motion to reopen removal proceedings, and that motion must be filed not later than ninety days after the date on which the final order of removal was entered. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2). The BIA's denial of a motion to reopen is reviewed for abuse of discretion. See Cano-Merida v. INS, 311 F.3d 960, 964 (9th Cir.2002).
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in determining that petitioner's untimely motion to reopen was not subject to the "changed circumstances" exception to the filing deadline because the evidence petitioner submitted did not establish changed circumstances in India. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(e)(3)(ii); Malty v. Ashcroft, 381 F.3d 942, 945 (9th Cir.2004). Petitioner's other arguments do not fall under one of the statutory exceptions for an untimely or numerically barred motion to reopen. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3). Accordingly, the Board of Immigration Appeals did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioner's second motion to reopen as time and numerically barred.
Respondent's motion for summary disposition is granted. All other pending motions are denied as moot. The temporary stay of removal confirmed by Ninth Circuit General Order 6.4(c) shall continue in effect until issuance of the mandate.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.