Siknaber Pawal, a.k.a. Sikander 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
SIKNABER PAWAL, a.k.a. Sikander
Singh,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 08-71537
Agency No. A078-258-049
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.
Siknaber Pawal, 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 30 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2
denial of a motion to reopen, Toufighi v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 988, 992 (9th Cir.
2008), and we deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion by denying Pawal’s third motion to
reopen as untimely and numerically barred where it was filed over four years after
the BIA’s final order, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Pawal failed to establish
changed circumstances in India to qualify him for the regulatory exception to the
time and numerical limitations, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); see also Malty v.
Ashcroft, 381 F.3d 942, 945-46 (9th Cir. 2004).
Pawal’s contentions that the BIA failed to properly consider the evidence
and impermissibly deemed the affidavits he submitted not credible are belied by
the record.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --