FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUL 31 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SOHAN SINGH; BAKHASH KAUR, No. 11-71025
Petitioners, Agency Nos. A079-257-647
A079-257-648
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, MEMORANDUM *
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted July 24, 2013 **
Before: ALARCÓN, CLIFTON, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Sohan Singh and Bakhash Kaur, natives and citizens of India, petition for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying their motion
to reopen removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We
*
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).
review for an abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, Toufighi v.
Holder, 538 F.3d 988, 992 (9th Cir. 2008), and we deny the petition for review.
The BIA denied petitioners’ motion as untimely, and found they failed to
show changed circumstances to qualify for the regulatory exception provided in 8
C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii), where some of their evidence related in part to Singh’s
prior claim, which was found not credible, and the other evidence did not establish
changed circumstances in India with regard to the treatment of politically active
Sikhs. Petitioners contend the BIA abused its discretion by failing to take into
account country conditions evidence, by failing to consider petitioners’ evidence
not tainted by the prior adverse credibility finding in conjunction with the country
reports, and by discounting their credible evidence. Because these contentions are
not supported by the record, petitioners have not shown the BIA abused its
discretion in denying their motion to reopen. See He v. Gonzales, 501 F.3d 1128,
1131 (9th Cir. 2007) (“The decision of the BIA should be left undisturbed unless it
is arbitrary, irrational, or contrary to law.”) (internal quotation marks and citation
omitted).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2 11-71025