Case Name: Kuldip SINGH, Petitioner, v. THE BOARD OF IMMIGRATION APPEALS, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-08-01
Citations: 190 F. App'x 95
Docket Number: No. 05-1863-AG
Parties: Kuldip SINGH, Petitioner, v. THE BOARD OF IMMIGRATION APPEALS, Respondent.
Judges: Present WILFRED FEINBERG, JON O. NEWMAN and CHESTER J. STRAUB, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 190
Pages: 95–96

Head Matter:
Kuldip SINGH, Petitioner, v. THE BOARD OF IMMIGRATION APPEALS, Respondent.
No. 05-1863-AG.
United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
Aug. 1, 2006.
Ashwani K Bhakhri, Burlingame, CA, for Petitioner.
Donald W. Washington, United States Attorney, Western District of Louisiana,
John A. Broadwell, Assistant United States Attorney, Shreveport, LA, for Respondent.
Present WILFRED FEINBERG, JON O. NEWMAN and CHESTER J. STRAUB, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
SUMMARY ORDER
Kuldip Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of a March 17, 2005 decision of the BIA denying a motion to reopen his removal proceedings. See In re Kuldip Singh, No. [ AXX XXX XXX ] (B.I.A. Mar. 17, 2005) (per curiam). This Court reviews the BIA's denial of a motion to reopen or reconsider for abuse of discretion. See Jin Ming Liu v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 109, 111 (2d Cir.2006) (per curiam); Kaur v. BIA, 413 F.3d 232, 233 (2d Cir. 2005) (per curiam). We assume the parties' familiarity with the facts and procedural history of the case.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in determining that Singh's second motion to reopen exceeded the statutory numerical limitations. The BIA also correctly observed that Singh failed to submit material evidence in support of the assertions made in his motion to reopen, and it reasonably denied Singh's motion on this basis. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); cf. INS v. Jong Ha Wang, 450 U.S. 139,143, 101 S.Ct. 1027, 67 L.Ed.2d 123 (1981) (holding that court of appeals erred in overturning BIA's denial of motion to reopen deportation proceeding in order to apply for suspension of deportation, where alien's allegations were not supported by affidavit or evidentiary material).
Accordingly, the petition for review is hereby DENIED.