Court Opinion

ID: 855732
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-03-20 20:03:57.3872+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:02:09.864266
License: Public Domain

FILED
                             NOT FOR PUBLICATION                              MAR 20 2013

                                                                         MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                     UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS

                             FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

HARJINDER SINGH,                                  No. 11-70102

               Petitioner,                        Agency No. A075-246-742

  v.
                                                  MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

               Respondent.

                      On Petition for Review of an Order of the
                          Board of Immigration Appeals

                             Submitted March 12, 2013 **

Before:        PREGERSON, REINHARDT, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.

       Harjinder Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for 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. We review for

          *
             This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
          **
             The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
an abuse of discretion the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen. Toufighi v.

Mukasey, 538 F.3d 988, 992 (9th Cir. 2008). We deny the petition for review.

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

untimely where the motion was filed over three years after the BIA’s final order,

see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Singh failed to present sufficient evidence of

changed circumstances in India to qualify for the regulatory exception to the time

limit for filing motions to reopen, and where an affidavit presented by Singh failed

to overcome the immigration judge’s prior adverse credibility finding, see 8 C.F.R.

§ 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); Toufighi, 538 F.3d at 996-97 (petitioner failed to establish a

prima facie case for relief in light of the immigration judge’s conclusive findings

on his underlying claim).

      PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

                                           2                                    11-70102