Case Name: Joghinder 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: 2013-12-09
Citations: 548 F. App'x 434
Docket Number: No. 12-70227
Parties: Joghinder SINGH, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before CANBY, TROTT, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 548
Pages: 434–435

Head Matter:
Joghinder SINGH, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 12-70227.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Nov. 19, 2013.
Filed Dec. 9, 2013.
Khagendra Gharti Chhetry, Esquire, Counsel, Chhetry & Assoc. P.C., New York, NY, for Petitioner.
OIL, Richard Zanfardino, 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 CANBY, TROTT, and THOMAS, 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
Joghinder 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 an abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen. Toufighi v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 988, 992 (9th Cir.2008). We deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Singh's untimely second motion to reopen where Singh filed the motion over four years after the BIA's final decision, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and failed to establish prima facie eligibility for relief, see Toufighi, 538 F.3d at 996-97. We reject Singh's contention the BIA failed to properly address his evidence, or otherwise abused its discretion in considering his claims. See id. at 992 ("This Court defers to the Board's exercise of discretion unless it acted arbitrarily, irrationally or contrary to law.").
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.