FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION AUG 14 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
TIRATH SINGH, No. 10-71669
Petitioner, Agency No. A077-610-699
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted August 8, 2012 **
Before: ALARCÓN, BERZON, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
Tirath 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
*
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).
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 in denying Singh’s motion to reopen as
untimely where the motion was filed over three years after the BIA’s final
decision, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Singh failed to demonstrate changed
circumstances in India to qualify for the regulatory exception to the time limitation,
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.”). In denying the
motion to reopen, the BIA properly compared evidence in the record at the time of
Singh’s prior hearing to evidence he submitted with his motion to reopen. To the
extent Singh argues the BIA denied his motion to reopen based on the conclusion
that he knowingly withdrew his prior application for withholding of removal, his
contention is belied by the record because the BIA did not deny his motion to
reopen based on this.
Because the BIA’s changed circumstances finding is dispositive, we reject
Singh’s contention that the BIA erred by ignoring his Convention Against Torture
claim. Singh’s remaining contentions that do not relate to the changed country
2 10-71669
condition finding similarly are unavailing. Finally, we reject Singh’s contention
that the BIA did not adequately examine his evidence. See Fernandez v. Gonzales,
439 F.3d 592, 603 (9th Cir. 2006) (finding petitioner had not overcome the
presumption that the BIA reviewed the record); see also Najmabadi, 597 F.3d at
990 (the BIA “does not have to write an exegesis on every contention”).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 10-71669