Naranjan 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
NARANJAN SINGH,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 07-74044
Agency No. A077-838-556
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted September 13, 2010**
Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Naranjan Singh, a native and citizen of Fiji, petitions for review of the Board
of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen removal
proceedings. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for
abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen. Ordonez v. INS, 345 F.3d
FILED
SEP 22 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

07-74044 2
777, 782 (9th Cir. 2003). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for
review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Singh’s motion to reopen
because it was untimely, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and because Singh failed to
present sufficient evidence of changed circumstances in Fiji to qualify for the
regulatory exception to the time limit for filing motions to reopen, see 8 C.F.R.
§ 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); 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.”).
We reject Singh’s contention that the BIA failed to consider the evidence
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).
We decline to reconsider Singh’s challenge to the BIA’s May 3, 2005, order
because this court already rejected these contentions. See Singh v. Gonzales, No.
05-73091 (9th Cir. March 1, 2007); see also Merritt v. Mackey, 932 F.2d 1317,
1320 (9th Cir. 1991) (under the “law of the case doctrine,” one panel of an
appellate court will not reconsider questions which another panel has decided on a
prior appeal in the same case).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

-- 2 of 2 --