Case Name: Dalsher 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: 2009-06-29
Citations: 328 F. App'x 400
Docket Number: No. 07-73560
Parties: Dalsher SINGH, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: PAEZ, TALLMAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 328
Pages: 400–400

Head Matter:
Dalsher SINGH, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 07-73560.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted June 16, 2009.
Filed June 29, 2009.
Babak Pourtavoosi, Pannun the Firm, P.C., Jackson Heights, NY, for Petitioner.
Dalin Riley Holyoak, Esquire, Trial, Anh-Thu P. Mai-Windle, Senior Litigation Counsel, Kathryn McKinney, DOJ-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: PAEZ, TALLMAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Dalsher Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") decision denying his motion to reopen. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, Ordonez v. INS, 345 F.3d 777, 782 (9th Cir.2003), and 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 two 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 the regulatory exception to the time limit, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); see also Toufighi v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 988, 996-97 (9th Cir.2008) (underlying adverse credibility determination rendered evidence of changed circumstances immaterial).
To the extent Singh contends the BIA failed to consider some or all of the evidence he submitted with the motion to reopen, he has not overcome the presumption that the BIA did review the record. See Fernandez v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 592, 603 (9th Cir.2006).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.