Texte intégral
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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
BHADUR SINGH,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 10-71355
Agency No. A078-659-981
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 26, 2012**
Before: SCHROEDER, HAWKINS, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.
Bhadur Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board
of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen. We have
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of
FILED
JUL 06 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS
-- 1 of 2 --
10-71355 2
a motion to reopen. Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir. 2010). We
deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Singh’s untimely motion to
reopen where the motion was filed over five and a half years after the agency’s
final order, 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 limitation.
See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); Najmabadi, 597 F.3d at 987-90.
Additionally, we decline to consider Singh’s challenge to the immigration
judge’s adverse credibility finding because this court already decided the issue in
Singh v. Mukasey, 305 Fed. Appx. 404 (9th Cir. 2008). See Merritt v. Mackey, 932
F.2d 1317, 1320 (9th Cir. 2001) (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).
In light of these conclusions, we need not address Singh’s remaining
contentions.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
-- 2 of 2 --