Harminder Singh v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
HARMINDER SINGH,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 15-71620
Agency No. A088-347-459
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 17, 2022**
Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
Harminder 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. Cano-Merida v. INS, 311
* 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
MAY 20 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 15-71620
F.3d 960, 964 (9th Cir. 2002). We deny the petition for review.
We previously denied Singh’s petition for review of the agency’s decision
that he was not eligible for asylum, withholding of removal, or protection under the
Convention Against Torture. Singh v. Holder, 586 F. App’x 269 (9th Cir. 2014)
(unpublished). We now conclude that the BIA did not abuse its discretion by
denying Singh’s untimely motion to reopen. As the BIA determined, Singh did not
introduce previously unavailable, material evidence, and no exception to the filing
deadline for his motion to reopen otherwise applies. 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C); 8
C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(1); Young Sun Shin v. Mukasey, 547 F.3d 1019, 1025 (9th Cir.
2008) (applicants seeking to “reopen proceedings to pursue relief bear a ‘heavy
burden’ of proving that, if proceedings were reopened, the new evidence would
likely change the result in the case”) (quoting Matter of Coelho, 20 I. & N. Dec.
464, 473 (BIA 1992)).
The record does not support Singh’s contention that the BIA failed to
consider the evidence he submitted with his motion to reopen or otherwise violated
his right to due process. See Feng Gui Lin v. Holder, 588 F.3d 981, 987 (9th Cir.
2009) (“[A]lthough the BIA must consider a petitioner’s evidence of changed
country conditions, it need not expressly refute on the record every single piece of
evidence.”).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --