Nirmal 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
NIRMAL SINGH,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 07-74519
Agency No. A070-546-901
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.
Nirmal 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 abuse of
FILED
JUL 16 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

07-74519 2
discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, 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 in denying Singh’s motion to reopen as
untimely where the motion was filed over two years after the BIA’s final decision,
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); see also Toufighi v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 988, 996-97 (9th Cir.
2008) (underlying adverse credibility determination rendered evidence of changed
circumstances immaterial).
Singh contends the BIA violated his due process rights by not giving him a
fair opportunity to present his claim. Because the BIA did not abuse its discretion
in denying the motion to reopen, denial of an evidentiary hearing did not violate
due process. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7) (stating that motion to reopen shall state
the new facts that will be proven at a hearing to be held if the motion is granted,
and shall be supported by affidavits or other evidentiary material); see also Lata v.
INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error to prevail on a due
process claim).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --