FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION DEC 21 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SURJEET SINGH, No. 11-70207
Petitioner, Agency No. A074-651-608
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 19, 2012 **
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Surjeet 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 abuse 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).
discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, Toufighi v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 988, 992
(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 as untimely and number-barred, where the motion was filed over six 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 and number limits for filing motions to reopen, see 8 C.F.R. §
1003.2(c)(3)(ii); Toufighi, 538 F.3d at 996-97 (evidence was immaterial in light of
prior adverse credibility determination); Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 990
(9th Cir. 2010) (evidence of “generalized conditions” in Iran failed to demonstrate
that petitioner’s situation was “appreciably different from the dangers faced by her
fellow citizens”). Further, we reject Singh’s contention that his motion to reopen
proceedings to consider his CAT claim is not subject to time limitations. See Chen
v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1028, 1033 (9th Cir. 2008).
Finally, we do not address any arguments Singh makes related to adjustment
of status because the agency did not address this issue. See Najmabadi, 597 F.3d at
986 (this court’s review is limited to grounds relied upon by the BIA).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2 11-70207