Daljit Sandhu v. Eric Holder, Jr. , 471 F. App'x 705 ( 2012 )


Menu:
  •                                                                             FILED
    NOT FOR PUBLICATION                             MAR 13 2012
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    DALJIT SINGH SANDHU,                              No. 09-71656
    Petitioner,                        Agency No. A076-457-451
    v.
    MEMORANDUM *
    ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
    Respondent.
    On Petition for Review of an Order of the
    Board of Immigration Appeals
    Submitted March 6, 2012 **
    Before:        B. FLETCHER, REINHARDT, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
    Daljit Singh Sandhu, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the
    Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen. Our
    jurisdiction is governed by 
    8 U.S.C. § 1252
    . We review for abuse of discretion the
    *
    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).
    denial of a motion to reopen, Toufighi v. Mukasey, 
    538 F.3d 988
    , 992 (9th
    Cir. 2008), and we deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
    The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Sandhu’s motion to reopen
    as untimely where the motion was filed six years after the BIA’s final decision, see
    
    8 C.F.R. § 1003.2
    (c)(2), and Sandhu failed to demonstrate changed circumstances
    in India to qualify for the regulatory exception to the time limit, see 
    8 C.F.R. § 1003.2
    (c)(3)(ii); Najmabadi v. Holder, 
    597 F.3d 983
    , 989-90 (9th Cir. 2010).
    We reject Sandhu’s contention that the BIA did not adequately examine his
    evidence. See Fernandez v. Gonzales, 
    439 F.3d 592
    , 603 (9th Cir. 2006)
    (petitioner did 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”). Further, Sandhu’s contentions that the BIA failed to apply
    the proper legal standard or properly address his claim for relief under the
    Convention Against Torture are belied by the record.
    Finally, we lack jurisdiction over any challenge Sandhu makes to the BIA’s
    2002 order affirming the immigration judge’s decision finding him not credible,
    because Sandhu’s petition for review is untimely as to that order. See Toufighi,
    
    538 F.3d at 995
    .
    PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
    2                                       09-71656
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 09-71656

Citation Numbers: 471 F. App'x 705

Judges: Fletcher, Reinhardt, Tashima

Filed Date: 3/13/2012

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024