Surjit Singh v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SURJIT SINGH,
Petitioner,
v.
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 17-70733
Agency No. A096-152-558
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 11, 2018**
Before: SILVERMAN, PAEZ, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
Surjit 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 abuse of
discretion the denial of a motion to reopen. Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983,
* 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
APR 13 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 17-70733
986 (9th Cir. 2010). 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 more than twelve years after the BIA’s final
order, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and where Singh failed to establish a material
change in circumstances in India to qualify for the regulatory exception to the time
limitation for filing a motion to reopen, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); see also
Najmabadi, 597 F.3d at 990-91 (petitioner failed to show evidence was
“qualitatively different” to warrant reopening); Toufighi v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 988,
996-97 (9th Cir. 2008) (evidence immaterial in light of prior adverse credibility
determination). We reject Singh’s contentions that the BIA failed to consider
evidence.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --