Dilbagh Singh v. Eric H. Holder Jr. , 444 F. App'x 167 ( 2011 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUL 20 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DILBAGH SINGH, No. 08-74170
Petitioner, Agency No. A072-523-404
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted July 12, 2011 **
Before: SCHROEDER, ALARCÓN, and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.
Dilbagh 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 pursuant to 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 the denial of a motion to reopen, 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 five 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 limit, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3) (ii); see also
Toufighi, 538 F.3d at 996-97.
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.
To the extent Singh challenges the agency’s underlying adverse credibility
determination, we decline to consider the contentions because the court previously
rejected them in Singh v. Gonzales, 135 Fed. Appx. 907 (9th Cir. 2005). See
Merritt v. Mackey, 932 F.2d 1317, 1320 (9th Cir. 1991) (explaining under the ‘law
of the case doctrine,’ one panel of an appellate court will not reconsider questions
which another panel has decided on a prior appeal in the same case).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2 08-74170