Ginny Singh v. Eric Holder, Jr. , 588 F. App'x 579 ( 2014 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION DEC 15 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
GINNY SINGH, No. 11-71163
Petitioner, Agency No. A073-682-139
v.
MEMORANDUM*
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 9, 2014**
Before: WALLACE, LEAVY, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Ginny 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
discretion the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen. Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d
*
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).
983, 986 (9th Cir. 2010). We review de novo claims of due process violations.
Singh v. Holder, 638 F.3d 1264, 1269 (9th Cir. 2011). We deny the petition for
review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion by denying Singh’s motion to reopen as
untimely where the motion was filed more than seven years after the BIA’s final
order, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Singh failed to demonstrate materially
changed conditions in India to qualify for the regulatory exception to the time limit
for filing motions to reopen, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2.(c)(3)(ii). The BIA reasonably
determined that the evidence submitted with Singh’s motion to reopen did not
establish a material change in conditions. See Najmabadi, 597 F.3d at 990 (“The
Board adequately considered [petitioner’s] evidence and sufficiently announced its
decision”).
We reject Singh’s contention that the BIA applied the wrong legal standard,
and his contention that the BIA’s decision violated due process. See 8
U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii); Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000)
(requiring error and prejudice to prevail on a due process challenge). Singh’s
request for judicial notice of the docket and administrative record is denied as
unnecessary.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2 11-71163