Balkar 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
BALKAR SINGH,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 07-74056
Agency No. A076-862-032
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 29, 2010**
Before: ALARCÓN, LEAVY, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
Balkar Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board
of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his second motion to reopen. We
have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion,
FILED
JUL 13 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

07-74056 2
Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir. 2010), and we deny the petition
for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion by denying Singh’s motion to reopen as
untimely where the motion was filed more than 90 days after the BIA’s final order,
see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Singh failed to establish changed country
conditions in India to qualify for the regulatory exception to the time limitation,
see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); see also Malty v. Ashcroft, 381 F.3d 942, 945 (9th
Cir. 2004) (“The critical question is . . . whether circumstances have changed
sufficiently that a petitioner who previously did not have a legitimate claim for
asylum now has a well-founded fear of future persecution.”).
Singh’s contention that the BIA failed to provide a reasoned explanation for
its denial is belied by the record.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --