Case Name: Sarabjit 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: 2017-04-19
Citations: 688 F. App'x 444
Docket Number: No. 16-70211
Parties: Sarabjit SINGH, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: GOULD, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 688
Pages: 444–445

Head Matter:
Sarabjit SINGH, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 16-70211
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted April 11, 2017
Filed April 19, 2017
Jaspreet Singh, Esquire, Attorney, Law Office of Jaspreet Singh, Jackson Heights, NY, for Petitioner
OIL, Virginia Lum, Attorney, DOJ— U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent
Before: GOULD, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, 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
Sarabjit Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order denying his motion to reopen 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), and we deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Singh's second motion to reopen, where Singh filed it more than eight years after the BIA's final order, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and where Singh failed to demonstrate changed country conditions in India to qualify for the regulatory exception to the limitations imposed on filing a motion to reopen, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii), Najmabadi, 597 F.3d at 987-90 (evidence must be "qualitatively different" to warrant reopening); see also Toufighi v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 988, 996-97 (9th Cir. 2008) (evidence was immaterial 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 Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.