Balraj Singh v. Eric Holder, Jr.

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 20 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
BALRAJ SINGH, No. 11-71725
Petitioner, Agency No. A073-426-080
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted March 12, 2013 **
Before: PREGERSON, REINHARDT, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Balraj Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions pro se 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 BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen, Toufighi 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).
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 Singh’s motion to reopen as
untimely because the motion was filed almost seven years after the BIA’s final
order, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Singh failed to present material evidence of
changed circumstances in India to qualify for the regulatory exception to the time
limitation for filing a motion to reopen, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); Shin v.
Mukasey, 547 F.3d 1019, 1025 (9th Cir. 2008) (“Aliens who seek to remand or
reopen proceedings to pursue relief bear a ‘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).
We reject Singh’s contentions that the BIA failed to consider fully Singh’s
arguments and evidence or to explain adequately its decision. See Najmabadi v.
Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 2010).
We lack jurisdiction to review any challenge Singh raises to the BIA’s
underlying order denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and
protection under the Convention Against Torture, because the petition is not timely
as to that order. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1) (petitions for review must be filed
2 11-71725
within 30 days of the final order of removal); Singh v. INS, 315 F.3d 1186, 1188
(9th Cir. 2003).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
3 11-71725