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

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RAJWINDER SINGH,
Petitioner,
v.
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 18-70064
Agency No. A099-857-409
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted September 12, 2018**
Before: LEAVY, HAWKINS, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.
Rajwinder Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reconsider.
We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the
denial of a motion to reconsider or reopen, Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785,
* 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
SEP 20 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 18-70064
791 (9th Cir. 2005), and we deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Singh’s motion to reconsider
where Singh failed to identify any error of fact or law in the BIA’s prior order. See
8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1) (a motion to reconsider must specify errors of fact or law
in a prior decision); Ma v. Ashcroft, 361 F.3d 553, 558 (9th Cir. 2004) (discussing
the standard for a motion to reconsider).
In construing Singh’s motion as a motion to reopen, the BIA did not abuse
its discretion in denying it where Singh failed to demonstrate that the new evidence
he submitted would likely have changed the outcome of his case. See Shin v.
Mukasey, 547 F.3d 1019, 1025 (9th Cir. 2008) (“Aliens who seek to remand or
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.” (citation omitted)).
We reject Singh’s contention that the BIA failed to construe his motion to
reconsider as a motion to reopen.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --