Singh v. Holder , 382 F. App'x 582 ( 2010 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUN 07 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JASWINDER SINGH, No. 07-72608
Petitioner, Agency No. A073-612-378
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 25, 2010 **
Before: CANBY, THOMAS, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Jaswinder 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. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review
for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen. Iturribarria v. INS, 321
*
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).
F.3d 889, 894 (9th Cir. 2003). We deny in part and dismiss in part 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 one year after the BIA’s final decision,
see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Singh failed to establish changed circumstances in
India to qualify for the regulatory exception to the time limitation, see 8 C.F.R.
§ 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); see also Toufighi v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 988, 996-97 (9th Cir.
2008) (underlying adverse credibility determination rendered evidence of changed
circumstances immaterial).
We lack jurisdiction to review Singh’s contention that he did not receive a
full and fair removal hearing before the immigration judge because Singh failed to
exhaust this contention to the BIA during his underlying removal proceedings. See
Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
2 07-72608