Daljit Singh v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DALJIT SINGH,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 13-71320
Agency No. A097-122-688
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted March 10, 2015**
Before: FARRIS, WARDLAW, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Daljit Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board
of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) denial of his motion to reopen removal
proceedings to reapply for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under
the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under
FILED
MAR 19 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* 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).

-- 1 of 2 --

8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the BIA’s denial of a motion
to reopen. Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir. 2010). We review de
novo claims of due process violations. Larita-Martinez v. INS, 220 F.3d 1092,
1095 (9th Cir. 2000). We deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion when it denied Singh’s motion to
reopen as untimely because the motion was filed over four years after the BIA’s
final decision, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Singh failed to demonstrate
changed country conditions in India to qualify for an exception to the time
limitations for a motion to reopen, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii), Najmabadi, 597
F.3d at 991-92 (BIA did not abuse discretion where petitioner failed to introduce
material evidence); see also Cano-Merida v. INS, 311 F.3d 960, 965-66 (9th Cir.
2002) (no abuse of discretion where motion to reopen did not establish prima facie
eligibility for CAT relief). We reject Singh’s contention that the BIA failed to
consider the new evidence he submitted.
Finally, we reject Singh’s contention that the BIA violated his due process
rights. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error to
prevail on a due process challenge); Larita-Martinez, 220 F.3d at 1095-96
(petitioners must overcome presumption that agency reviewed all evidence).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
13-71320 2

-- 2 of 2 --