FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUL 13 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
BALKAR SINGH, No. 07-74056
Petitioner, Agency No. A076-862-032
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 29, 2010 **
Before: ALARCÓN, LEAVY, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
Balkar Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board
of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his second motion to reopen. We
have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion,
*
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).
Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir. 2010), and we deny the petition
for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion by denying Singh’s motion to reopen as
untimely where the motion was filed more than 90 days after the BIA’s final order,
see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Singh failed to establish changed country
conditions in India to qualify for the regulatory exception to the time limitation,
see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); see also Malty v. Ashcroft, 381 F.3d 942, 945 (9th
Cir. 2004) (“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 contention that the BIA failed to provide a reasoned explanation for
its denial is belied by the record.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2 07-74056