Balbinder 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
BALBINDER SINGH,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 07-72811
Agency No. A076-728-607
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 25, 2010**
Before: CANBY, THOMAS, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Balbinder Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen based
on changed country conditions. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We
FILED
JUN 03 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

07-72811 2
review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, Iturribarria v. INS,
321 F.3d 889, 894 (9th Cir. 2003), 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 over two years after the BIA’s final decision,
see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Singh failed to present sufficient evidence of
changed circumstances in India to qualify for the regulatory exception to the time
limit, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); see also Toufighi v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 988,
996-97 (9th Cir. 2008) (underlying adverse credibility determination rendered
evidence of changed circumstances immaterial). We reject Singh’s contention that
the BIA erred when it took the immigration judge’s adverse credibility
determination into account.
Singh’s contention that the BIA failed to consider the evidence submitted
with the motion to reopen fails, because he has not overcome the presumption that
the BIA did review the record. See Fernandez v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 592, 603 (9th
Cir. 2006).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --