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NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUN 02 2010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
SATWINDER SINGH, No. 08-70337
Petitioner, Agency No. A071-768-170
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.
Satwinder Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen
exclusion proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Reviewing
for abuse of discretion, Malty v. Ashcroft, 381 F.3d 942, 945 (9th Cir. 2004), 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).
deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Singh’s motion to reopen
because the motion was filed more than two years after the BIA’s May 4, 2005,
order, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Singh failed to demonstrate materially
changed circumstances in India to qualify for the regulatory exception to the filing
deadline, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); see also Malty, 381 F.3d at 945 (“The
critical question is . . . whether circumstances have changed sufficiently that a
petitioner who previously did not have a legitimate claim for asylum now has a
well-founded fear of future persecution.”).
Singh’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2 08-70337