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

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
KULDEEP SINGH,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 12-73454
Agency No. A075-734-386
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 13, 2014**
Before: CLIFTON, BEA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
Kuldeep 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
MAY 21 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* 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).

-- 1 of 2 --

abuse of discretion the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen. Najmabadi v. Holder,
597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion by denying Singh’s motion to reopen as
untimely because the motion was filed more than nine 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); Najmabadi, 597 F.3d
at 897 (evidence must be “qualitatively different” from the evidence presented at
the previous hearing). We reject Singh’s contention that the BIA “omitted” and
“misstated” salient facts in denying his motion. See id. at 990 (“the Board
adequately considered [petitioner’s] evidence and sufficiently announced its
decision”).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
12-73454 2

-- 2 of 2 --