SUKHWINDER SINGH, AKA Bobby Singh, AKA Sukwinder Bobby Singh v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SUKHWINDER SINGH, AKA Bobby
Singh, AKA Sukwinder Bobby Singh,
Petitioner,
v.
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 15-73417
Agency No. A073-766-068
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted August 9, 2017**
Before: SCHROEDER, TASHIMA, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Sukhwinder Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions pro se for review
of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen
removal proceedings. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review
for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen. Najmabadi v. Holder, 597
* 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
AUG 16 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 15-73417
F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny in part and dismiss in part 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 two years after the BIA’s final
order, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Singh failed to provide sufficient evidence
of a material change in circumstances in India to qualify for a regulatory exception
to the time limitation for filing a motion to reopen, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii);
see also Toufighi v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 988, 996 (9th Cir. 2008) (the BIA may
deny a motion to reopen for failure to establish materially changed country
conditions).
We do not consider the materials attached to Singh’s opening brief that are
not part of the administrative record, see Fisher v. INS, 79 F.3d 955, 963 (9th Cir.
1996) (en banc) (our review is limited to the administrative record), and we lack
jurisdiction to consider Singh’s arguments as to evidence or claims for relief that
he did not present to the BIA in his motion to reopen, see Barron v. Ashcroft, 358
F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004) (petitioner must exhaust issues or claims in
administrative proceedings below).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

-- 2 of 2 --