Gurpreet Singh Brar v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
GURPREET SINGH BRAR,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 09-73754
Agency No. A77-859-183
MEMORANDUM *
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Argued and Submitted February 7, 2011
Seattle, Washington
Before: B. FLETCHER, PAEZ and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
The Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) did not abuse its discretion in
denying Brar’s motion to reopen as untimely. Fernandez v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d
592, 601 (9th Cir. 2006). The BIA expressly stated that it reviewed “the evidence
that [Brar] submitted in support of his untimely motion to reopen,” see Larita-
FILED
FEB 22 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2
Martinez v. INS, 220 F.3d 1092, 1095–96 (9th Cir. 2000), including the affidavits
relating to the shooting and detention of Brar’s brother, and determined that the
evidence failed to establish that conditions for Sikhs, suspected Sikh militants, or
separatists had substantially worsened in India. The BIA’s conclusion that Brar
failed to establish changed country circumstances sufficient to excuse him from the
90 day time limitation for motions to reopen, 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii); 8
C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii), is supported by substantial evidence in the record, see
Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 989–990 (9th Cir. 2010).
Brar failed to establish that he was exempt from the 90 day time limitation
for motions to reopen because of changed country conditions. Thus, the BIA was
not required to consider his prima facie eligibility for asylum or to reconsider its
prior conclusion that Brar failed to establish past persecution; nor was the BIA
required to consider Brar’s eligibility for withholding or relief under the
Convention Against Torture. Najmabadi, 597 F.3d at 991–92.
PETITION DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --