Amandeep Singh v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
AMANDEEP SINGH,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 14-70102
Agency No. A200-892-050
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 9, 2015**
Before: WALLACE, RAWLINSON, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
Amandeep Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s (“IJ”) denial of his motion to reopen his removal proceedings.
We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion
* 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).
FILED
DEC 14 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 14-70102
the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen, Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 986
(9th Cir. 2010), and we deny the petition for review.
The BIA dismissed Singh’s appeal of the IJ’s denial of his motion to reopen
to rescind the removal order entered in absentia on the sole basis that the motion
was untimely. Singh does not challenge this finding. See Martinez-Serrano v.
INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir. 1996) (issues not specifically raised and
argued in a party’s opening brief are waived). Thus, we deny the petition for
review with respect to the motion to reopen to rescind the removal order entered in
absentia.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Singh’s appeal of the
immigration judge’s denial of his motion to reopen based on changed country
conditions because he did not establish prima facie eligibility for the relief sought.
See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(4)(i); Toufighi v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 988, 996 (9th Cir.
2007) (stating the hurdles a petitioner needs to clear in order to prevail on a motion
to reopen based on changed country conditions).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --