Darshan 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
DARSHAN SINGH,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 09-72477
Agency No. A077-843-798
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 17, 2012**
Before: LEAVY, PAEZ, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
Darshan Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions pro se 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
APR 23 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

09-72477 2
an abuse of discretion the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen. Toufighi v.
Mukasey, 538 F.3d 988, 992 (9th Cir. 2008). We deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Singh’s motion to reopen as
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 limit for
filing motions to reopen, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); Najmabadi v. Holder, 597
F.3d 983, 987 (9th Cir. 2010) (newly submitted evidence must be “qualitatively
different” from the evidence presented at the prior hearing); Toufighi, 538 F.3d at
994-97 (evidence was irrelevant in light of prior adverse credibility determination).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --