Inderjit Singh v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
INDERJIT SINGH,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 12-73921
Agency No. A089-679-669
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 14, 2016**
Before: BEA, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
Inderjit 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 review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen.
Toufighi v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 988, 992 (9th Cir. 2008). We deny the petition for
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
FILED
JUN 22 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 12-73921
review.
We do not consider Singh’s contentions regarding the agency’s underlying
decisions which were previously reviewed by this court in Singh v. Holder, 535 F.
App’x 551 (9th Cir. July 31, 2013).
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Singh’s motion to reopen
because it was untimely, see 8 C.F.R. §1003.2(c)(2), Singh failed to establish the
evidence predating his July 2009 immigration hearing was not available and could
not have been discovered or presented at his hearing, see 8 C.F.R. §1003.2(c)(1),
and Singh failed to establish his motion otherwise fell within the regulatory
exception to the time limitation for filing a motion to reopen, see 8 C.F.R.
§ 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 988-89 (9th Cir. 2010)
(evidence must be “qualitatively different” to warrant reopening). We reject
Singh’s contention that the BIA ignored his evidence or addressed it improperly.
See Najmabadi, 597 F.3d at 990 (the BIA adequately considered the evidence and
sufficiently announced its decision).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --