Case Name: Amrik 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: 2010-09-22
Citations: 396 F. App'x 387
Docket Number: No. 07-73393
Parties: Amrik SINGH, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 396
Pages: 387–388

Head Matter:
Amrik SINGH, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 07-73393.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Sept. 13, 2010.
Filed Sept. 22, 2010.
Viney Gupta, Esquire, Orange, CA, for Petitioner.
Siu P. Wong, Esquire, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Ronald E. LeFevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, and N.R. 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
Amrik Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order denying his motion to reopen exclusion proceedings to apply for adjustment of status. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791 (9th Cir.2005). We deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Singh's third motion to reopen as untimely and number-barred where the motion was filed almost two years after the final administrative order was entered in his case, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and he failed to demonstrate that he was eligible for an exception to the regulatory limitations based on changed circumstances, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 991 (9th Cir.2010)
Singh's remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
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.