Case Name: Balkar SINGH, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-04-30
Citations: 230 F. App'x 728
Docket Number: No. 06-71723
Parties: Balkar SINGH, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: O’SCANNLAIN, GRABER and BEA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 230
Pages: 728–728

Head Matter:
Balkar SINGH, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 06-71723.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted April 16, 2007.
Filed April 30, 2007.
Hector M. Roman, Jr., Esq., Roman & Singh, LLP, Jackson Heights, NY, for Petitioner.
Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, OIL, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, GRABER and BEA, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Balkar Singh, a native and citizen of India, seeks review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings. To the extent we have jurisdiction, it is conferred by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Reviewing for abuse of discretion, Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 894 (9th Cir.2003), we dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review.
We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA's underlying order dismissing Singh's direct appeal from the IJ's decision because this petition for review is not timely as to that order. See Singh v. INS, 315 F.3d 1186, 1188 (9th Cir.2003).
The BIA acted within its discretion in denying Singh's motion to reopen where Singh failed to present new and material evidence in support of his asylum application. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.