Mohinder 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
MOHINDER SINGH,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 08-71322
Agency No. A076-679-971
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 15, 2012**
Before: CANBY, GRABER, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Mohinder Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his second motion to
reopen removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We
FILED
MAY 22 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

08-71322 2
review for abuse of discretion, 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 in denying Singh’s second motion to
reopen as time-barred and number-barred where the successive motion was filed
over four years after the BIA’s final decision, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and
Singh failed to present sufficient evidence of changed circumstances in India to
qualify for an exception to the time and number limits, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)
(ii).
We reject Singh’s contention that the BIA did not adequately examine his
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 also
reject Singh’s contention that the BIA applied the wrong legal standard.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --