FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JAN 03 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SARANJIT SINGH, No. 12-71694
Petitioner, Agency No. A079-262-374
v.
MEMORANDUM*
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 17, 2013**
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
Saranjit 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 BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen. Najmabadi v. Holder,
597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion by denying Singh’s second motion to
reopen as untimely and number-barred because the motion was filed more than six
years after the BIA’s final order, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Singh failed to
demonstrate materially changed conditions in India to qualify for the regulatory
exception to the time and numerical limit for filing motions to reopen, see 8 C.F.R.
§ 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); Najmabadi, 597 F.3d at 987 (evidence must be “qualitatively
different” from the evidence presented at the previous hearing); see also Toufighi
v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 988, 995-97 (9th Cir. 2008) (requiring movant to establish
prima facie eligibility for relief and discussing consequences of lack of credibility).
We reject Singh’s contention that the BIA failed to adequately consider the
evidence presented with the motion to reopen. See Najmabadi, 597 F.3d at 990-91.
Finally, we decline to consider any challenge Singh makes to the agency’s
underlying credibility determination because this court already decided the issue in
Singh v. Gonzales, No. 05-72061, 2006 WL 2074674 (9th Cir. July 26, 2006).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2 12-71694