Paramjit 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
PARAMJIT SINGH,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 11-72024
Agency No. A071-947-948
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted September 24, 2013**
Before: RAWLINSON, N.R. SMITH, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Paramjit 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
FILED
SEP 26 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

11-72024 2
abuse of discretion the 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 Singh’s motion to reopen as
untimely, where the motion was filed more than four years after the final order of
removal, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Singh failed to establish prima facie
eligibility for relief, see Toufighi, 538 F.3d at 996-97 (evidence must demonstrate
prima facie eligibility for relief warranting reopening based on changed country
conditions).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --