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

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MANJINDER SINGH,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 12-73844
Agency No. A097-105-712
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.
Manjinder 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 where the motion was filed more than five 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); Toufighi v. Mukasey,
538 F.3d 988, 995-97 (9th Cir. 2008) (underlying adverse credibility determination
rendered evidence of changed circumstances immaterial); see also Najmabadi, 597
F.3d at 987 (evidence must be “qualitatively different” from the evidence presented
at the previous hearing). We reject Singh’s contention that the BIA failed to
adequately consider the evidence presented with the motion to reopen. See
Najmabadi, 597 F.3d at 990-91.
Finally, we reject Singh’s contention that the BIA’s denial of his motion
violated due process. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000)
(requiring error and prejudice to prevail on a due process challenge).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
12-73844 2

-- 2 of 2 --