Atma 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
ATMA SINGH,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 09-73655
Agency No. A076-728-420
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 28, 2012**
Before: LEAVY, THOMAS, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Atma 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 abuse of
discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983,
FILED
MAR 08 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

09-73655 2
986 (9th Cir. 2010), and we deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion by denying Singh’s second motion to
reopen as numerically-barred and untimely where the motion was filed over six
years after the BIA’s final order, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Singh failed to
present sufficient evidence of changed circumstances in India to qualify for the
regulatory exception to the time and number limitation 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 circumstances immaterial). Because Singh’s motion to
reopen to seek relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”) is based on
the same facts as his other claims, we reject Singh’s contention the BIA erred by
failing to separately address his CAT claim. Lastly, Singh’s contentions that the
BIA applied a higher standard to his motion are belied by the record.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --