Rajvir Singh v. Eric Holder, Jr.

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION APR 16 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RAJVIR SINGH, No. 09-70603
Petitioner, Agency No. A097-587-029
v.
MEMORANDUM*
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 7, 2015**
Before: FISHER, TALLMAN, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
Rajvir 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
*
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).
discretion the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen, Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d
983, 986 (9th Cir. 2010), and we deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Singh’s untimely motion to
reopen, because it considered the record and Singh’s evidence, and acted within its
broad discretion in determining it was insufficient to warrant reopening. See Singh
v. INS, 295 F.3d 1037, 1039 (9th Cir. 2002) (the BIA’s denial of a motion to
reopen shall be reversed only if it is “arbitrary, irrational, or contrary to law.”); see
also Shin v. Mukasey, 547 F.3d 1019, 1025 (9th Cir. 2008) (petitioner failed to
satisfy “‘heavy burden’ of proving that, if proceedings were reopened, the new
evidence would likely change the result in the case.”) (quoting Matter of Coelho,
20 I. & N. Dec. 464, 473 (BIA 1992)).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2 09-70603