Brijmati 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).
NV/Research
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
BRIJMATI SINGH,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 07-73026
Agency No. A072-400-174
MEMORANDUM *
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted March 16, 2010 **
Before: SCHROEDER, PREGERSON, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
Brijmati Singh, a native and citizen of Fiji, petitions for review of the Board
of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying her motion to reopen removal
proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of
FILED
MAR 25 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

NV/Research 07-73026 2
discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, see Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889,
894 (9th Cir. 2003), and we deny the petition for review.
We reject Singh’s contention that the BIA erred by failing to weigh the
appropriate evidence in considering her motion to reopen. See Fernandez v.
Gonzales, 439 F.3d 592, 603 (9th Cir. 2006).
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners’ motion to
reopen as untimely where the motion was filed nearly ten years after the BIA’s
final decision, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Singh failed to establish changed
country conditions in Fiji to qualify for the regulatory exception to the time
limitation, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); see also Malty v. Ashcroft, 381 F.3d
942, 945 (9th Cir. 2004) (“The critical question is … whether circumstances have
changed sufficiently that a petitioner who previously did not have a legitimate
claim for asylum now has a well-founded fear of future persecution.”).
To the extent Singh challenges the BIA’s September 5, 1996 order denying
asylum and withholding of removal, we decline to consider the contentions
because they have already been considered and rejected by this court in Singh v.
INS, 134 F.3d 962 (9th Cir. 1998). See Merritt v. Mackey, 932 F.2d 1317, 1320
(9th Cir. 1991) (explaining that under the ‘law of the case doctrine,’ one panel of

-- 2 of 3 --

NV/Research 07-73026 3
an appellate court will not reconsider questions which another panel has decided on
a prior appeal in the same case).
Finally, Singh does not challenge the BIA’s denial of humanitarian asylum
or her motion to reconsider. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60
(9th Cir. 1996).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --