Case Name: Darshan 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: 2012-04-23
Citations: 472 F. App'x 729
Docket Number: No. 09-72477
Parties: Darshan SINGH, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 472
Pages: 729–729

Head Matter:
Darshan SINGH, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 09-72477.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted April 17, 2012.
Filed April 23, 2012.
Darshan Singh, Ceres, CA, pro se.
Anthony John Messuri, Esquire, Trial, DOJ — 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: LEAVY, PAEZ, and BEA, 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
Darshan Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions pro se 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 BIA's 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 motion to reopen as untimely where the motion was filed over six years after the BIA's final order, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Singh failed to present sufficient evidence of changed circumstances in India 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 v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 987 (9th Cir.2010) (newly submitted evidence must be "qualitatively different" from the evidence presented at the prior hearing); Toufighi, 538 F.3d at 994-97 (evidence was irrelevant in light of prior adverse credibility determination).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.