Case Name: Dulla SINGH, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-10-30
Citations: 699 F. App'x 755
Docket Number: No. 16-70213
Parties: Dulla SINGH, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: McKEOWN, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges,
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 699
Pages: 755–755

Head Matter:
Dulla SINGH, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 16-70213
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted October 23, 2017
Filed October 30, 2017
Dulla Singh, Pro Se
Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Brooke Maurer, Trial Attorney, OIL, DOJ—U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, for Respondent
Before: McKEOWN, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, 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
Dulla 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 abuse of discretion the BIA's denial of a motion to reopen. Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Singh's motion to reopen where it was untimely and number-barred, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and where Singh failed to establish materially changed circumstances in India to qualify for the regulatory exception to the time limitations for motions to reopen, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3); Najmabadi, 597 F.3d at 991-92 (BIA did not abuse its discretion where petitioner failed to introduce material evidence).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3,