FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION AUG 16 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
GURSANT SINGH GREWAL, No. 08-74341
Petitioner, Agency No. A075-308-908
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted August 11, 2011 **
Before: THOMAS, SILVERMAN, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
Gursant Singh Grewal, 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 pursuant to 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 abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, Toufighi v.
Mukasey, 538 F.3d 988, 992 (9th Cir. 2008), and we deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Grewal’s motion to reopen
as time-barred where the motion was filed over four years after the BIA’s final
decision, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Grewal failed to present sufficient
evidence of changed circumstances in India to qualify for an exception to the time
limit, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3) (ii); see also Toufighi, 538 F.3d at 996-97.
We reject Grewal’s contention that the BIA did not adequately examine his
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). We also
reject Grewal’s contention that the BIA applied the wrong legal standard.
To the extent Grewal challenges the agency’s underlying adverse credibility
determination, we decline to consider the contentions because the court previously
rejected them in Grewal v. Ashcroft, 120 Fed. Appx. 140 (9th Cir. 2005). See
Merritt v. Mackey, 932 F.2d 1317, 1320 (9th Cir. 1991) (explaining 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.
2 08-74341