NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT NOV 25 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
BALJIT SINGH, No. 13-72676
Petitioner, Agency No. A098-847-983
v.
MEMORANDUM*
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 18, 2015**
Before: TASHIMA, OWENS, and FRIEDLAND, 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
discretion the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen. Toufighi v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d
*
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).
988, 992 (9th Cir. 2008). We deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Singh’s motion to reopen
because it was filed more than four years after his order of removal became final,
see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Singh failed to establish materially changed
circumstances in India as to qualify for the regulatory exception to the time
limitation for motions to reopen, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); Najmabadi v.
Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 987-90 (9th Cir. 2010) (evidence must be “qualitatively
different” to warrant reopening); see also Toufighi, 538 F.3d at 996-97 (evidence
was immaterial in light of prior adverse credibility determination); Go v. Holder,
744 F.3d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 2014) (holding that “the procedural requirements
specified in 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c) apply to CAT claims”).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2 13-72676