Mohinder Singh v. Eric H. Holder Jr. ( 2012 )


Menu:
  •                                                                            FILED
    NOT FOR PUBLICATION                            MAY 22 2012
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                      U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    MOHINDER SINGH,                                  No. 08-71322
    Petitioner,                       Agency No. A076-679-971
    v.
    MEMORANDUM *
    ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
    Respondent.
    On Petition for Review of an Order of the
    Board of Immigration Appeals
    Submitted May 15, 2012 **
    Before:        CANBY, GRABER, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    Mohinder Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the
    Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his second motion to
    reopen removal proceedings. 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, Toufighi v. Mukasey, 
    538 F.3d 988
    , 992 (9th Cir.
    2008), and we deny the petition for review.
    The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Singh’s second motion to
    reopen as time-barred and number-barred where the successive motion was filed
    over four 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 an exception to the time and number limits, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)
    (ii).
    We reject Singh’s contention that the BIA did not adequately examine his
    evidence because he has not overcome the presumption that the BIA reviewed the
    record. See Fernandez v. Gonzales, 
    439 F.3d 592
    , 603 (9th Cir. 2006). We also
    reject Singh’s contention that the BIA applied the wrong legal standard.
    PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
    2                                   08-71322
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 08-71322

Filed Date: 5/22/2012

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/30/2014