Kulwinder Singh v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
KULWINDER SINGH,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 11-73126
Agency No. A096-025-794
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 17, 2013**
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
Kulwinder Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) denial of his motion to reopen removal
proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of
FILED
JAN 03 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* 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).

-- 1 of 2 --

discretion the BIA’s 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 because the motion was filed over seven years after the BIA’s final
decision, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Singh failed to establish materially
changed circumstances in India to qualify for the regulatory exception to the time
limitation for motions to reopen, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); Najmabadi, 597
F.3d at 988-89 (evidence of changed circumstances must be qualitatively different
from what could have been presented at prior hearing).
We reject Singh’s contentions that the BIA failed to address adequately his
evidence or arguments, or to explain adequately its decision. See Najmabadi, 597
F.3d at 990 (the BIA “does not have to write an exegesis on every contention”).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
11-73126 2

-- 2 of 2 --