Baljinder Singh v. Eric Holder, Jr. ( 2012 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION DEC 28 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
BALJINDER SINGH, No. 10-73878
Petitioner, Agency No. A098-496-833
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.
Baljinder Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen and
reconsider. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse
of discretion the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen or reconsider. Cano-Merida v.
*
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).
INS, 311 F.3d 960, 964 (9th Cir. 2002). 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 reconsider
because Singh did not identify any error or fact or law in the BIA’s prior decision.
See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1). The BIA also did not abuse its discretion in denying
Singh’s motion to reopen because he did not establish that his proffered evidence
would likely change the result in the case. See Shin v. Mukasey, 547 F.3d 1019,
1025 (9th Cir. 2008) (contention petitioner filed application did not suffice to meet
“heavy burden” of proving new evidence would likely change result) (citation
omitted). Further, contrary to Singh’s contentions, the record shows the BIA
properly and adequately reviewed his motion.
In addition, we lack jurisdiction to review Singh’s contentions regarding the
agency’s previous analysis of his claim under the Convention Against Torture
because he failed to raise them to the BIA in his motion. See Barron v. Ashcroft,
358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004). Finally, to the extent Singh challenges the
underlying agency decisions, we lack jurisdiction because this petition is not
timely as to those decisions. See Singh v. INS, 315 F.3d 1186, 1188 (9th Cir.
2003).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
2 10-73878