Sarabjit 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
SARABJIT SINGH,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 11-72622
Agency No. A096-165-814
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 26, 2013**
Before: HUG, FARRIS, and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.
Sarabjit Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen
proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for an abuse
FILED
MAR 25 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

11-72622 2
of discretion the BIA’s denial of the motion to reopen, see 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 motion to reopen as
untimely because Singh filed the motion more than 90 days after the BIA issued its
final order, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Singh failed to present the material
evidence of changed circumstances in India that was required 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); see also Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 987-90 (9th Cir.
2010) (holding that petitioner did not qualify for exception to time limit because
she failed to submit new evidence that was qualitatively different from evidence
presented at original hearing and had individualized relevancy); Toufighi, 538 F.3d
at 994-97 (holding that previous adverse credibility determination rendered
immaterial any evidence of changed circumstances in Iran).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --