FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 08 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
KIRPAL SINGH, No. 09-70285
Petitioner, Agency No. A079-290-263
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 15, 2011 **
Before: CANBY, FERNANDEZ, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Kirpal 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 the
*
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).
denial of a motion to reopen, Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 894 (9th Cir.
2003), and we deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Singh’s motion to reopen as
untimely and numerically barred because it was Singh’s second motion, filed
almost six years after the BIA’s final order of removal, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2),
and Singh failed to establish changed country circumstances in India to qualify for
the regulatory exception to the time and number limitations, see 8 C.F.R. §
1003.2(c)(3)(ii); 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.”).
We reject Singh’s contention that the BIA failed to consider evidence
because he has not overcome the presumption that the BIA reviewed the record.
See Fernandez v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 592, 603 (9th Cir. 2006). Singh’s
contentions that the BIA applied a higher standard and failed to consider his
request to reopen to seek protection under the Convention Against Torture are
belied by the BIA’s order.
Finally, we decline to reconsider Singh’s challenge to the immigration
judge’s adverse credibility determination because this court already decided the
2 09-70285
issue in Singh v. Ashcroft, 113 Fed.Appx. 233 (9th Cir. 2004). See Merritt v.
Mackey, 932 F.2d 1317, 1320 (9th Cir. 1991) (explaining that under the “law of the
case 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.1
1
Christopher J. Stender’s motion to withdraw as counsel for the
petitioner is granted.
3 09-70285