NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 30 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DULLA SINGH, No. 16-70213
Petitioner, Agency No. A079-290-290
v.
MEMORANDUM*
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted October 23, 2017**
Before: McKEOWN, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
Dulla Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions pro se 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. Najmabadi v. Holder,
*
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).
597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Singh’s motion to reopen
where it was untimely and number-barred, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and where
Singh failed to establish materially changed circumstances in India to qualify for
the regulatory exception to the time limitations for motions to reopen, see 8 C.F.R.
§ 1003.2(c)(3); Najmabadi, 597 F.3d at 991-92 (BIA did not abuse its discretion
where petitioner failed to introduce material evidence).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2 16-70213