Kuldip 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
KULDIP SINGH,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 11-71577
Agency No. A075-304-600
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 14, 2013**
Before: LEAVY, THOMAS, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Kuldip 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 BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen, Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d
FILED
MAY 20 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

11-71577 2
983, 986 (9th Cir. 2010), and we deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Singh’s fifth motion to
reopen as untimely and number-barred because the motion was filed over six years
after the BIA’s final decision, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Singh failed to
establish changed circumstances in India to qualify for the regulatory exception to
the time and number limitations, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); Najmabadi, 597
F.3d at 988-89 (evidence of changed circumstances must be qualitatively different
from what could have been presented at prior hearing).
Singh’s contention that the BIA failed to review the new evidence
accompanying his fifth motion to reopen lacks merit. See Larita-Martinez v. INS,
220 F.3d 1092, 1095-96 (9th Cir. 2000).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --