Bachitar Singh; v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
BACHITAR SINGH; et al.,
Petitioners,
v.
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 13-70690
Agency Nos. A098-846-956
A098-846-957
A098-846-958
A098-846-959
MEMORANDUM *
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 14, 2017**
Before: GOODWIN, FARRIS, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.
Bachitar Singh and his family, natives and citizens of India, petition for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying their motion
to reopen removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We
review for abuse of discretion the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen, Najmabadi
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
FILED
FEB 23 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 13-70690
v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir. 2010), and we deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners’ untimely motion
to reopen because Singh failed to establish materially changed circumstances in
India to qualify for the regulatory exception to the time limitation imposed on
motions to reopen. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); Najmabadi, 597 F.3d at 987-90
(evidence must be “qualitatively different” to warrant reopening). We reject
Singh’s contentions that the BIA failed to consider facts or conduct a sufficient
analysis.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --