NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 23 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RAJINDER SINGH, No. 10-73366
Petitioner, Agency No. A089-043-081
v.
MEMORANDUM*
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
RAJINDER SINGH, No. 11-72352
Petitioner, Agency No. A089-043-081
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted October 19, 2015**
San Francisco, California
*
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).
Before: PAEZ, MURGUIA, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Rajinder Singh petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals (“BIA”) dismissing his appeal of a decision by an Immigration Judge (“IJ”)
denying applications for asylum and withholding of removal. In a second petition
for review, Singh challenges the BIA’s denial of his motion to reopen. We deny
both petitions.
1. Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s conclusions that Singh failed to
demonstrate past persecution and would not be persecuted if returned to India. In
particular, the country reports presented sufficiently individualized evidence as to
the lack of probability of future persecution. See Singh v. Lynch, --- F.3d --- , 2015
WL 5515484 (9th Cir. 2015); Singh v. Holder, 753 F.3d 826, 830–37 (9th Cir. 2014).
We therefore DENY Singh’s petition for review of the BIA decision dismissing his
appeal from the IJ’s denial of the application for asylum and withholding.1
2. The BIA’s determination that Singh’s motion to reopen was untimely
under 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i) was not an abuse of discretion. Singh’s motion
to reopen was filed more than ninety days after the final administrative order of
removal was entered, and Singh did not establish that he was entitled to equitable
1
Although Singh also sought relief under the Convention Against Torture, his
petition for review does not challenge the denial of that relief.
2
tolling. See Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 897 (9th Cir. 2003) (finding equitable
tolling appropriate when an applicant “is prevented from filing because of deception,
fraud, or error, as long as the petitioner acts with due diligence in discovering the
deception, fraud, or error”). Nor did he present previously unavailable evidence
that demonstrated a likelihood of future persecution on account of a protected
ground. See Singh v. Holder, 753 F.3d at 836. The petition for review of the BIA’s
denial of the motion to reopen is therefore DENIED.
3