FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUL 30 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
BALJIT SINGH, No. 12-70350
Petitioner, Agency No. A095-568-815
v.
MEMORANDUM*
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted July 22, 2014**
Before: GOODWIN, CANBY, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Baljit 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 abuse of
*
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).
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 motion to reopen as
untimely where the motion was filed more than four years after the BIA’s final
order, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), Singh failed to show that some of the evidence
was not previously available and could not have been presented at his previous
hearing, see 8 C.F.R § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii), and Singh otherwise failed to demonstrate
changed conditions that qualify for the regulatory exception to the time limit for
filing motions to reopen, see id.; Toufighi v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 988, 996-97 (9th
Cir. 2008) (evidence was immaterial in light of prior adverse credibility
determination). We reject Singh’s contentions that the BIA ignored or failed to
adequately consider either his identity documents or the country condition
evidence presented with the motion to reopen. See Najmabadi, 597 F.3d at 990-91
(BIA adequately considered evidence and sufficiently announced decision).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2 12-70350