Case Name: Satnam 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: 2010-04-19
Citations: 376 F. App'x 754
Docket Number: No. 08-74835
Parties: Satnam SINGH, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: RYMER, McKEOWN, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 376
Pages: 754–754

Head Matter:
Satnam SINGH, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 08-74835.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted April 5, 2010.
Filed April 19, 2010.
Saad Ahmad, Fremont, CA, for Petitioner.
Dawn S. Conrad, 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: RYMER, McKEOWN, and PAEZ, 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
Satnam Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order denying his third 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. Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 894 (9th Cir.2003). We deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Singh's third motion to reopen as time-barred and number-barred where the motion was filed over five years after the BIA's final decision, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Singh failed to establish changed circumstances in India to qualify for the regulatory exception to the time limitation, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(h); see also Toufighi v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 988, 996 (9th Cir.2008) (in order to prevail on a motion to reopen based on changed country conditions, petitioner must demonstrate that new evidence, together with the evidence presented at the original hearing, establishes prima facie eligibility for relief sought).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.