Jatinder Singh v. Jefferson Sessions , 703 F. App'x 559 ( 2017 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 21 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JATINDER SINGH, No. 16-71734
Petitioner, Agency No. A088-390-353
v.
MEMORANDUM*
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 18, 2017**
Before: WALLACE, SILVERMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Jatinder 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 discretion the denial of a motion to reopen. Najmabadi v. Holder, 597
F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny the petition for review.
*
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).
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Singh’s motion to reopen as
untimely, where he filed the motion more than two years after his final
administrative order of removal, failed to establish the due diligence required for
equitable tolling of the filing deadline, and failed to present sufficient evidence of
materially changed country conditions in India to qualify for the regulatory
exception to the filing deadline. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2)-(3); Avagyan v.
Holder, 646 F.3d 672, 679 (9th Cir. 2011) (equitable tolling is available to a
petitioner who is prevented from timely filing a motion to reopen due to deception,
fraud or error, as long as the petitioner exercises due diligence in discovering such
circumstances); Najmabadi, 597 F.3d at 988-90 (new evidence lacked materiality).
In light of our disposition, we do not reach Singh’s remaining contentions
regarding the alleged ineffectiveness of prior counsel or eligibility for relief. See
Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 538 (9th Cir. 2004) (courts and agencies are
not required to decide issues unnecessary to the results they reach).
Singh has waived his contention that the BIA ignored evidence submitted
with his motion. See Rizk v. Holder, 629 F.3d 1083, 1091 n.3 (9th Cir. 2011)
(issues not raised in an opening brief are waived).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2 16-71734