Malkiat 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
MALKIAT SINGH,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 10-73242
Agency No. A079-256-684
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 19, 2012**
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Malkiat Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen. We
have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the
FILED
DEC 28 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

10-73242 2
denial of a motion to reopen, Toufighi v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 988, 992 (9th
Cir. 2008), and we deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Singh’s motion to reopen
because it considered the record and acted within its broad discretion in
determining that the evidence was insufficient to establish prima facie eligibility
for the relief sought. See id. at 996-97; see also Cano-Merida v. INS, 311 F.3d
960, 965-66 (9th Cir. 2002). Given this conclusion, we reject Singh’s contentions
that the BIA erred by failing to address his additional arguments regarding his
asylum and Convention Against Torture claims.
We also reject Singh’s contention that the BIA did not adequately consider
his evidence. See Fernandez v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 592, 603 (9th Cir. 2006)
(finding petitioner had not overcome the presumption that the BIA reviewed the
record); see also Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 2010) (the BIA
“does not have to write an exegesis on every contention”). Finally, contrary to
Singh’s contention, the BIA applied the proper legal standard.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --