Baldev 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
BALDEV SINGH,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 10-73463
Agency No. A072-693-223
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 21, 2011**
Before: TASHIMA, BERZON, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.
Baldev Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board
of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen. We have
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for an abuse of discretion, Malty v.
Ashcroft, 381 F.3d 942, 945 (9th Cir. 2004), and we deny the petition for review.
FILED
NOV 23 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

10-73463 2
The BIA did not abuse its discretion by denying Singh’s motion to reopen as
untimely because the motion was filed over five years after the BIA’s final order,
see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Singh failed to present material evidence of
changed circumstances in India to qualify for the regulatory exception to the time
limitation for filing motions to reopen, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); see also
Toufighi v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 988, 996-97 (9th Cir. 2008) (underlying adverse
credibility determination rendered evidence of changed circumstances immaterial).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --