DocketNumber: 09-71603
Citation Numbers: 470 F. App'x 626
Judges: Fernandez, McKeown, Bybee
Filed Date: 3/2/2012
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 10/19/2024
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 02 2012 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT BALWINDER SINGH, No. 09-71603 Petitioner, Agency No. A077-384-679 v. MEMORANDUM * ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted February 21, 2012 ** Before: FERNANDEZ, McKEOWN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges. Balwinder Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen. We have jurisdiction under8 U.S.C. § 1252
. We review for an abuse of discretion, Toufighi v. Mukasey,538 F.3d 988
, 992 (9th Cir. 2008), and we deny the petition * 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). for review. The BIA did not abuse its discretion by denying Singh’s motion to reopen as untimely where the motion was filed over five years after the BIA’s final order, see8 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 for filing motions to reopen, see8 C.F.R. § 1003.2
(c)(3)(ii); Malty v. Ashcroft,381 F.3d 942
, 945 (9th Cir. 2004) (“The critical question is . . . whether circumstances have changed sufficiently that a petitioner who previously did not have a legitimate claim for asylum now has a well-founded fear of future persecution.”). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 2 09-71603