Kamaljit 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
KAMALJIT SINGH,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 12-71211
Agency No. A098-846-598
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted July 24, 2013**
Before: ALARCÓN, CLIFTON, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Kamaljit 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
FILED
JUL 30 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

12-71211 2
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
because it considered the record and acted within its broad discretion in
determining that the evidence was insufficient to establish prima facie eligibility
for asylum, withholding of removal, or relief under the Convention Against
Torture. See Ladha v. INS, 215 F.3d 889, 897 (9th Cir. 2000) (a well-founded fear
may be established through credible, direct, and specific evidence supporting a
reasonable fear of persecution); cf. Lim v. INS, 224 F.3d 929, 935 (9th Cir. 2000)
(threats established a well-founded fear where they were increasingly menacing).
To the extent Singh contends the new evidence shows the police will be interested
in him because of his past arrest, the argument fails. See Toufighi, 538 F.3d at 996-
97 (new evidence was immaterial in light of prior adverse credibility finding).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --