Harpreet Singh Thind 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
HARPREET SINGH THIND,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 07-74430
Agency No. A075-252-584
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted August 23, 2010**
Before: LEAVY, HAWKINS, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
Harpreet Singh Thind, 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
SEP 07 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

07-74430 2
abuse of discretion, He v. Gonzales, 501 F.3d 1128, 1130-31 (9th Cir. 2007), and
we deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Thind’s motion to reopen as
untimely because Thind filed it nearly two years after the BIA issued its final
order, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Thind failed to demonstrate changed
country conditions 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); see also Toufighi v.
Mukasey, 538 F.3d 988, 996-97 (9th Cir. 2008) (underlying adverse credibility
determination rendered evidence of changed country conditions immaterial).
We decline to reconsider Thind’s contentions regarding the BIA’s July 18,
2005, order affirming the immigration judge’s adverse credibility determination,
because this court previously decided those issues in Thind v. Gonzales, 218 Fed.
Appx. 607 (9th Cir. Jan. 16, 2007). 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.

-- 2 of 2 --