Wajeer 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
WAJEER SINGH,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 07-73809
Agency No. A075-307-139
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted July 19, 2010 **
Before: B. FLETCHER, REINHARDT, and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.
Wajeer Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board
of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying Singh’s motion to reopen removal
proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of
FILED
JUL 29 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

07-73809 2
discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, see Cano-Merida v. INS, 311 F.3d 960,
964 (9th Cir. 2002), and we deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Singh’s motion to reopen
because Singh failed to present material, previously unavailable evidence of
changed circumstances in India, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c), and Singh failed to
establish prima facie eligibility to reopen to apply for relief under the Convention
Against Torture, see Azanor v. Ashcroft, 364 F.3d 1013, 1018 (9th Cir. 2004) (“To
qualify for reopening under the Torture Convention, an alien must establish a
prima facie case that ‘it is more likely than not that ... she would be tortured if
removed to the proposed country of removal.’ ”) (citing 8 C.F.R. § 208.16(c)(2));
see also Cano-Merida, 311 F.3d at 966.
Finally, we reject Singh’s contention that the BIA failed to consider the
relevant facts because he has not overcome the presumption that the BIA reviewed
the record. See Fernandez v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 592, 603 (9th Cir. 2006).
Singh’s contention that the BIA failed to substantiate its decision is belied by the
agency’s order.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --