Amrit 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
AMRIT SINGH,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 07-73428
Agency No. A072-763-816
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted July 19, 2010**
Before: B. FLETCHER, REINHARDT, and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.
Amrit Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions pro se for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying Singh’s second motion to
reopen removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We
FILED
JUL 29 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

07-73428
review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, see Cano-Merida v.
INS, 311 F.3d 960, 964 (9th Cir. 2002), and we deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Singh’s motion to reopen as
untimely and numerically barred because it was Singh’s second motion to reopen
and he filed it over five years after the BIA’s final order of removal, see 8 C.F.R. §
1003.2(c), and Singh failed to establish changed circumstances in India to qualify
for the regulatory exception to the time and number limitations, see 8 C.F.R. §
1003.2(c)(3)(ii); Malty v. Ashcroft, 381 F.3d 942, 945-46 (9th Cir. 2004).
Finally, we reject Singh’s contention that the BIA failed to consider
evidence because he has not overcome the presumption that the BIA reviewed the
record. See Fernandez v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 592, 603 (9th Cir. 2006). Singh’s
contention that the BIA failed to address his arguments is belied by the agency’s
order.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --