Kundan 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
KUNDAN SINGH,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 08-70052
Agency No. A073-416-554
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.
Kundan Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen. We
have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the
FILED
SEP 24 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

08-70052 2
denial of a motion to reopen. Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 894 (9th Cir.
2003). We deny the petition for review.
Singh contends the BIA erred in denying his “motion to reopen due to
‘changed circumstances’ pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(D)” because the motion
was exempt from the time limitations for motions to reopen. Contrary to Singh’s
contention, this argument is foreclosed by Chen v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1028, 1031-
33 (9th Cir. 2008).
We reject Singh’s contention that the BIA’s order was inadequate because
the BIA’s order contained “a statement of its reasons for denying the petitioner
relief adequate for us to conduct our review.” See Ghaly v. INS, 58 F.3d 1425,
1430 (9th Cir. 1995).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --