Singh v. Holder , 381 F. App'x 684 ( 2010 )


Menu:
  •                                                                             FILED
    NOT FOR PUBLICATION                             JUN 03 2010
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    BALBINDER SINGH,                                  No. 07-72811
    Petitioner,                        Agency No. A076-728-607
    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.
    Balbinder Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the
    Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen based
    on changed country conditions. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We
    *
    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).
    review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, Iturribarria v. INS,
    
    321 F.3d 889
    , 894 (9th Cir. 2003), and we deny 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 two years after the BIA’s final decision,
    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
    limit, 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 reject Singh’s contention that
    the BIA erred when it took the immigration judge’s adverse credibility
    determination into account.
    Singh’s contention that the BIA failed to consider the evidence submitted
    with the motion to reopen fails, because he has not overcome the presumption that
    the BIA did review the record. See Fernandez v. Gonzales, 
    439 F.3d 592
    , 603 (9th
    Cir. 2006).
    PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
    2                                    07-72811
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 07-72811

Citation Numbers: 381 F. App'x 684

Judges: Canby, Thomas, Fletcher

Filed Date: 6/3/2010

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024