Harjinder Singh v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General

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).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
HARJINDER SINGH,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 11-70102
Agency No. A075-246-742
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted March 12, 2013**
Before: PREGERSON, REINHARDT, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Harjinder 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
FILED
MAR 20 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

11-70102 2
an abuse of discretion the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen. Toufighi v.
Mukasey, 538 F.3d 988, 992 (9th Cir. 2008). We deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Singh’s motion to reopen as
untimely where the motion was filed over three years after the BIA’s final order,
see 8 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, and where an affidavit presented by Singh failed
to overcome the immigration judge’s prior adverse credibility finding, see 8 C.F.R.
§ 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); Toufighi, 538 F.3d at 996-97 (petitioner failed to establish a
prima facie case for relief in light of the immigration judge’s conclusive findings
on his underlying claim).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --