FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JAN 24 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
HARSIMRAN SINGH, No. 08-75173
Petitioner, Agency No. A078-974-211
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted January 17, 2012 **
Before: LEAVY, TALLMAN, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Harsimran 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
*
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).
abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, Najmabadi v. Holder, 597
F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir. 2010), and we deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion by denying Singh’s motion to reopen as
untimely where the motion was filed over four years after the BIA’s final order,
see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Singh failed to present sufficient evidence of
changed circumstances in India to qualify for the regulatory exception to the time
limit for filing motions to reopen, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); Malty v.
Ashcroft, 381 F.3d 942, 945 (9th Cir. 2004) (“The critical question is . . . whether
circumstances have changed sufficiently that a petitioner who previously did not
have a legitimate claim for asylum now has a well-founded fear of future
persecution.”).
We reject Singh’s contention that the BIA failed to consider evidence
because he has not overcome the presumption that the BIA reviewed the record.
See Fernandez v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 592, 603 (9th Cir. 2006). Singh’s contention
that the BIA applied a higher standard is belied by the record.
Finally, we decline to reconsider Singh’s contentions regarding the
immigration judge’s adverse credibility determination because this court already
decided that issue in Singh v. Gonzales, 206 Fed. Appx. 707 (9th Cir. 2006). See
Merritt v. Mackey, 932 F.2d 1317, 1320 (9th Cir. 1991) (explaining that under the
2 08-75173
“law of the case doctrine,” one panel of an appellate court will not reconsider
questions which another panel has decided on a prior appeal in the same case).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 08-75173