Sukhdev Singh v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SUKHDEV SINGH,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 09-73398
Agency No. A076-842-225
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 24, 2016**
Before: LEAVY, FERNANDEZ, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
Sukhdev Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen
removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for
FILED
MAR 02 2016
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).

-- 1 of 2 --

abuse of discretion the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen. Najmabadi v. Holder,
597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Singh’s motion to reopen
because it was filed more than four years after his order of removal became final,
see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Singh failed to present material evidence of
changed circumstances in India to qualify for a regulatory exception to the time
limitation for filing a motion to reopen, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); Najmabadi,
597 F.3d at 987-90 (evidence must be “qualitatively different” to warrant
reopening); see also Toufighi v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 988, 996-97 (9th Cir. 2008)
(evidence was immaterial in light of prior adverse credibility determination). We
reject both Singh’s contention that the BIA failed to address the supplemental
evidence he filed in support of his motion, see Lin v. Holder, 588 F.3d 981, 987
(9th Cir. 2009), and his contention that the BIA erred in its assessment of his
wife’s affidavits. Finally, the record does not support Singh’s contention that the
BIA did not address his CAT claim in denying his motion to reopen.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
09-73398 2

-- 2 of 2 --