Surinder 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
SURINDER SINGH,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 10-71033
Agency No. A095-570-354
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted October 9, 2012**
Before: RAWLINSON, MURGUIA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
Surinder 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 BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen, Toufighi v. Mukasey,
FILED
OCT 15 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

10-71033 2
538 F.3d 988, 992 (9th Cir. 2008), and we deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Singh’s motion to reopen as
untimely because the motion was filed over four 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 a motion to reopen, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); see also
Toufighi, 538 F.3d at 996-97 (underlying adverse credibility determination
rendered evidence of changed circumstances immaterial).
We reject Singh’s contentions that the BIA failed to fully consider Singh’s
arguments and evidence or to adequately explain its decision. See Najmabadi v.
Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 990-91 (9th Cir. 2010).
Finally, we do not consider the agency’s adverse credibility determination,
or its denial of withholding of removal and protection under the Convention
Against Torture, because these issues were decided by the court in Singh v. Holder,
No. 05-73496, 2009 WL 2132650 (9th Cir. July 17, 2009).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --