FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUL 24 2012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
SAUDAGAR SINGH, No. 09-73305
Petitioner, Agency No. A073-413-926
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted July 17, 2012 **
Before: SCHROEDER, THOMAS, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.
Saudagar Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen. We
have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the
denial of a motion to reopen, and we review de novo questions of law. Socop-
*
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).
Gonzalez v. INS, 272 F.3d 1176, 1187 (9th Cir. 2001) (en banc). We deny the
petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Singh’s third motion to
reopen, filed twelve years after the final order of removal, as time- and number-
barred. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2). Singh’s contention that the time and number
limits on motions to reopen set forth in the Illegal Immigration Reform and
Immigrant Responsibility Act (“IIRIRA”) do not apply to his motion is misplaced
because the regulations setting the time and number limits were promulgated prior
to the effective date of IIRIRA. See 8 C.F.R. § 3.2(c)(2) (1996), as revised by 61
Fed.Reg. 18900 (April 29, 1996); Socop-Gonzalez, 272 F.3d at 1183, 1191-92
(applying 8 C.F.R. § 3.2(c)(2) to an untimely motion to reopen where removal
proceedings were instituted in 1995).
Contrary to Singh’s contention, he is not entitled to remand under Nevarez
Nevarez v. Holder, 512 F.3d 605, 608 (9th Cir. 2009).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2 09-73305