Case Name: Sohan 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: 2012-10-12
Citations: 485 F. App'x 241
Docket Number: No. 10-72879
Parties: Sohan SINGH, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: RAWLINSON, MURGUIA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 485
Pages: 241–241

Head Matter:
Sohan SINGH, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 10-72879.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Oct. 9, 2012.
Filed Oct. 12, 2012.
Michael Anthony Younge, Law Office of Michael A. Younge, Anaheim Hills, CA, for Petitioner.
Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Laura M.L. Marol-dy, Trial, Oil, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: RAWLINSON, MURGUIA, and WATFORD, 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
Sohan 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 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 BLA did not abuse its discretion in denying Singh's motion to reopen as untimely where it was filed almost four years after the BIA's final order, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Singh failed to present material evidence of changed circumstances to qualify for the regulatory exception to the time limit for filing 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 prior proceeding to be material).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.