FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUN 02 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
HARSIMRAN SINGH, No. 07-75005
Petitioner, Agency No. A079-142-926
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 25, 2010 **
Before: CANBY, THOMAS, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Harsimran 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).
abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen. Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d
889, 894 (9th Cir. 2003). 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 two and a half years after the BIA’s final
decision, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Singh failed to establish changed
circumstances in India to qualify for the regulatory exception to the time limitation,
see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); see also Toufighi v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 988, 996-97
(9th Cir. 2008) (underlying adverse credibility determination rendered evidence of
changed circumstances immaterial).
We reject Singh’s contention that the BIA’s order was inadequate and
without a reasoned analysis of the evidence, because the BIA’s order contained “a
statement of its reasons for denying the petitioner relief adequate for us to conduct
our review.” See Ghaly v. INS, 58 F.3d 1425, 1430 (9th Cir. 1995). Further,
Singh’s contention that the BIA made an improper adverse credibility
determination is belied by the record.
We decline to reconsider Singh’s challenge to the IJ’s adverse credibility
determination because this court previously rejected his contentions. See Singh v.
Gonzales, No. 05-70404 (9th Cir. Aug. 2, 2006); see also Merritt v. Mackey, 932
F.2d 1317, 1320 (9th Cir. 1991) (explaining that under the ‘law of the case
2 07-75005
doctrine,’one panel of an appellate court will not reconsider questions which
another panel has decided on a prior appeal in the same case).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 07-75005