Case Name: Mohinder 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: 2012-05-22
Citations: 473 F. App'x 627
Docket Number: No. 08-71322
Parties: Mohinder SINGH, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 473
Pages: 627–628

Head Matter:
Mohinder SINGH, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 08-71322.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted May 15, 2012.
Filed May 22, 2012.
Babak Pourtavoosi, Pannun The Firm, P.C., Jackson Heights, NY, for Petitioner.
Karen Y. Stewart, Esquire, 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: CANBY, GRABER, and M. SMITH, 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
Mohinder Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order denying his second motion to reopen removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion, Toufighi v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 988, 992 (9th Cir.2008), and we deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Singh's second motion to reopen as time-barred and number-barred where the successive motion was filed over four years after the BIA's final decision, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Singh failed to present sufficient evidence of changed circumstances in India to qualify for an exception to the time and number limits, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(h).
We reject Singh's contention that the BIA did not adequately examine his evidence because he has not overcome the presumption that the BIA reviewed the record. See Fernandez v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 592, 603 (9th Cir.2006). We also reject Singh's contention that the BIA applied the wrong legal standard.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.