Court Opinion

ID: 9402519
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-15 22:00:55.701194+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:00.569482
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                        FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        JUN 15 2023
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                              FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

HARDIAL SINGH,                                  No.    21-777

                Petitioner,                     Agency No.
                                                A095-630-059
 v.

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney                    MEMORANDUM*
General,

                Respondent.

                    On Petition for Review from a Final Order
                      Of the Board of Immigration Appeals

                               Submitted June 8, 2023**
                                 Pasadena, California

Before: M. SMITH and DESAI, Circuit Judges, and AMON,*** District Judge.

      Hardial Singh (“Singh”), a native and citizen of Indonesia, seeks review of

the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen

      *
             This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
      **
             The panel unanimously concludes that this case is suitable for
decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
      ***
             The Honorable Carol Bagley Amon, United States District Judge for
the Eastern District of New York, sitting by designation.
removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the

petition.

      We review the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen for abuse of discretion.

Perez v. Mukasey, 516 F.3d 770, 773 (9th Cir. 2008). Unless an exception applies,

a noncitizen who is subject to a final order of removal is limited to filing one motion

to reopen removal proceedings, and that motion must be filed within 90 days of the

date of entry of a final order of removal. See Malty v. Ashcroft, 381 F.3d 942, 945

(9th Cir. 2004) (citing 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2)). A motion to reopen “based on

changed circumstances arising in the country of nationality or in the country to which

deportation has been ordered” constitutes an exception to the time and numerical

limitation. Id. (quoting Azanor v. Ashcroft, 364 F.3d 1013, 1021-22 (9th Cir. 2004)).

To establish this exception, a petitioner must present new evidence of changed

country conditions that is “qualitatively different from the evidence presented at his

asylum hearing.” Id.; see Salim v. Lynch, 831 F.3d 1133, 1137 (9th Cir. 2016).

      The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Singh’s motion to reopen as

untimely. Singh’s motion relied solely on his counsel’s statements and did not

include any supporting materials to substantiate his claim that Indonesia’s country

conditions have changed. In this court, Singh cites for the first time evidence of

changes in country conditions, including several State Department country reports.

We do not consider any evidence that Singh presents for the first time in his opening

                                          2
brief, as our review is generally limited to the evidence before the BIA. See Dent v.

Holder, 627 F.3d 365, 371 (9th Cir. 2010); Fisher v. INS, 79 F.3d 955, 964 (9th Cir.

1996) (en banc); 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(A). 1

      PETITION DENIED.

1
  Singh’s motion before the BIA also raised an additional argument for reopening
based on his eligibility for adjustment of status. The BIA rejected this argument as
“not fall[ing] within any [statutory] exception to the motion to reopen . . . .”
Although Singh referred to this as an “issue[] presented for review” in his opening
brief, he did not make any arguments addressing this issue. The issue is therefore
waived. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259 (9th Cir. 1996) (“Issues
raised in a brief that are not supported by argument are deemed abandoned.”).

                                         3