Rajwinder Singh v. Loretta E. Lynch , 623 F. App'x 406 ( 2015 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION NOV 25 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RAJWINDER SINGH, No. 13-71876
Petitioner, Agency No. A099-857-409
v.
MEMORANDUM*
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 18, 2015**
Before: TASHIMA, OWENS, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
Rajwinder 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, Toufighi v. Mukasey,
*
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).
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 motion to reopen as
untimely because the motion was filed over two 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); see also
Toufighi, 538 F.3d at 996-97 (underlying adverse credibility determination
rendered evidence of changed circumstances immaterial). We reject Singh’s
contentions that the BIA failed to fully consider his arguments and evidence. See
Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 990-91 (9th Cir. 2010).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2 13-71876