Balwinder 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
BALWINDER SINGH,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 09-71603
Agency No. A077-384-679
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 21, 2012**
Before: FERNANDEZ, McKEOWN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Balwinder 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 an abuse of discretion,
Toufighi v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 988, 992 (9th Cir. 2008), and we deny the petition
FILED
MAR 02 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

09-71603 2
for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion by denying Singh’s motion to reopen as
untimely where the motion was filed over five years after the BIA’s final order, 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 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.”).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --