Taranjit 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
TARANJIT SINGH,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 07-73938
Agency No. A079-090-481
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 29, 2010**
Before: ALARCÓN, LEAVY, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
Taranjit Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying Singh’s motion to reopen
removal proceedings. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review
for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen. Ordonez v. INS, 345 F.3d
FILED
JUL 14 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

07-73938
2
777, 782 (9th Cir. 2003). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for
review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Singh’s motion to reopen
because Singh’s motion was untimely, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Singh
failed to establish 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.”).
To the extent Singh challenges the BIA’s April 24, 2006, order dismissing
his appeal from the immigration judge’s decision denying his application for
asylum and withholding of removal, or the BIA’s December 28, 2007, order
denying Singh’s second motion to reopen, we lack jurisdiction because this
petition for review is not timely as to those two orders. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1);
Singh v. INS, 315 F.3d 1186, 1188 (9th Cir. 2003). Furthermore, we decline to
reconsider Singh’s challenge to the BIA’s September 8, 2006, order denying his
motion to reconsider because his contentions have already been rejected by this

-- 2 of 3 --

07-73938
3
court. See Merritt v. Mackey, 932 F.2d 1317, 1320 (9th Cir. 1991) (explaining that
under the “law of the case doctrine,” one panel of an appellate court will not
reconsider questions which another panel has decided on a prior appeal in the same
case).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

-- 3 of 3 --