Jaswinder Singh Dhillon 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
JASWINDER SINGH DHILLON,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 10-73926
Agency No. A079-287-633
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 11, 2013**
Before: FERNANDEZ, TASHIMA, and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.
Jaswinder Singh Dhillon, 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 abuse of discretion the
FILED
FEB 13 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

10-73926 2
denial of a motion to reopen, Toufighi v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 988, 992 (9th
Cir. 2008), and we deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Dhillon’s motion to reopen
as untimely because the motion was filed over four years after the BIA’s final
administrative order, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Dhillon failed to
demonstrate changed circumstances in India to qualify for the regulatory exception
to the time limitation, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); see also Toufighi, 538 F.3d
at 996 (requiring movant to produce material evidence with motion to reopen that
conditions in country of nationality had changed).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --