NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 19 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SARABJIT SINGH, No. 16-70211
Petitioner, Agency No. A096-165-814
v.
MEMORANDUM *
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 11, 2017**
Before: GOULD, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Sarabjit Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen
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, Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
983, 986 (9th Cir. 2008), and we deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Singh’s second motion to
reopen, where Singh filed it more than eight years after the BIA’s final order, see 8
C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and where Singh failed to demonstrate changed country
conditions in India to qualify for the regulatory exception to the limitations
imposed on filing a motion to reopen, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii), Najmabadi,
597 F.3d at 987-90 (evidence must be “qualitatively different” to warrant
reopening); see also Toufighi v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 988, 996-97 (9th Cir. 2008)
(evidence was immaterial in light of prior adverse credibility determination).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2 16-70211