Court Opinion

ID: 8610163
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-11-24 07:43:00.749931+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:55:19.961046
License: Public Domain

MEMORANDUM **
Gurdeep Singh seeks 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. Reviewing for abuse of discretion, Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 894 (9th Cir.2003), we deny the petition for review.
The BIA acted within its discretion in denying as untimely Singh’s motion to reopen because it was filed more than two years after the BIA’s final removal order, see 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i) (motion to reopen must be filed within 90 days of final administrative removal order), and Singh failed to present new and material evidence of changed conditions in India, see 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii) (no time limit on motion to reopen to apply for asylum based on changed country conditions).
To the extent Singh contends the BIA failed to consider some or all of the evi*651dence he submitted with the motion to reopen, he has not overcome the presumption that the BIA did review the record. See Fernandez v. Gonzales, 489 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.