Kulvir 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
KULVIR SINGH,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 08-70800
Agency No. A073-423-178
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted September 13, 2010**
Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Kulvir 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
SEP 30 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

08-70800 2
discretion, He v. Gonzales, 501 F.3d 1128, 1130-31 (9th Cir. 2007), 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 more than two years after the BIA’s final
order, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Singh failed to demonstrate 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
(9th Cir. 2008) (evidence must demonstrate prima facie eligibility for relief in
order to reopen proceedings based on changed circumstances).
Singh’s contention the BIA erred because it relied solely on the immigration
judge’s adverse credibility determination is not supported by the record.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --