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).
RA/Research 06-75235
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
KULDIP SINGH,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 06-75235
Agency No. A075-304-600
MEMORANDUM *
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 15, 2009**
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, 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 proceedings.
Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of
FILED
JAN 11 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

RA/Research 06-75235 2
discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, Lara-Torres v. Ashcroft, 383 F.3d 968,
972 (9th Cir. 2004), amended by 404 F.3d 1105 (9th Cir. 2005), and we deny in
part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Singh’s third motion to
reopen as untimely and time barred where his motion was filed almost two years
after the BIA’s final order, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Singh failed to present
sufficient evidence of changed circumstances in India to qualify for the regulatory
exception to the time limit, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); see also Malty v.
Ashcroft, 381 F.3d 942, 945 (9th Cir. 2004) (“The critical question is . . . whether
circumstances have changed sufficiently that a petitioner who previously did not
have a legitimate claim for asylum now has a well-founded fear of future
persecution.”).
We lack jurisdiction to consider Singh’s contentions regarding the BIA’s
October 7, 2004 order affirming the immigration judge’s pretermission of Singh’s
application for asylum, because this petition for review is not timely as to that
order. See Singh v. INS, 315 F.3d 1186, 1188 (9th Cir. 2003).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

-- 2 of 2 --