FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION DEC 29 2009
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RANJIT SINGH, No. 07-72982
Petitioner, Agency No. A079-258-066
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 15, 2009 **
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Ranjit Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board
of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his second motion to reopen
removal proceedings. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review
*
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).
JK/Research
for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen. Iturribarria v. INS, 321
F.3d 889, 894 (9th Cir. 2003). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for
review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Singh’s second motion to
reopen as untimely and numerically barred, where the motion was filed over three
years after the BIA’s final decision, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Singh failed
to establish changed circumstances in India to qualify for the regulatory exception
to the time and number limitation, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); see also
Toufighi v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 988, 996 (9th Cir. 2008) (in order to prevail on a
motion to reopen based on changed country conditions, petitioner must
demonstrate that evidence would establish prima facie eligibility for relief sought).
We lack jurisdiction over Singh’s due process contention that he received
inadequate translation at his merits hearing, as well as his renewed challenge to the
immigration judge’s adverse credibility determination, because he failed to raise
these contentions to the BIA in the second motion to reopen. See Barron v.
Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
JK/Research 2 07-72982