Harsimran Singh v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
HARSIMRAN SINGH,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 11-73378
Agency No. A078-974-211
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 17, 2013**
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
Harsimran Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) denial of his motion to reopen removal
proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of
FILED
JAN 03 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* 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). Thus, we deny Zhou’s
request for oral argument.

-- 1 of 3 --

discretion the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen, Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d
983, 986 (9th Cir. 2010), and we deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying the Singh’s third motion to
reopen as untimely and number-barred where the motion was filed more than seven
years after the BIA’s final administrative order, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and
Singh failed to establish materially changed circumstances in India to qualify for
the regulatory exception to the time and numerical limitations for motions to
reopen, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); Najmabadi, 597 F.3d at 987 (new evidence
“must be ‘qualitatively different’ from the evidence presented at the previous
hearing”); see also Toufighi v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 988, 996-97 (9th Cir. 2008)
(BIA did not abuse its discretion in concluding alien failed to establish prima facie
eligibility, where motion to reopen was based on underlying claim found not
credible).
We reject Singh’s contentions that the BIA erred in its treatment of the
evidence submitted. See Najmabadi, 597 F.3d at 990-91 (BIA must consider
issues raised and announce its decision in a manner sufficient for reviewing court
to perceive that it has heard and thought and not merely reacted).
To the extent Singh attempts to challenge the agency’s underlying credibility
determination, we decline to review this claim because this court already decided
11-73378 2

-- 2 of 3 --

the issue in Singh v. Gonzales, No. 04-71721, 2006 WL 3313170 (9th Cir.
November 14, 2006).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
11-73378 3

-- 3 of 3 --