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

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SATNAM SINGH,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 12-70108
Agency No. A075-309-978
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted January 21, 2014**
Before: CANBY, SILVERMAN, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Satnam 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 denial of
FILED
JAN 24 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 --

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 five years after the BIA’s final
decision, 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 limit for
filing motions to reopen, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); Najmabadi, 597 F.3d at
988-89. We reject Singh’s contention that the BIA did not consider the country
reports submitted with his motion. See Fernandez v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 592, 603
(9th Cir. 2006) (petitioner did not overcome the presumption that the BIA
reviewed the record).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
12-70108 2

-- 2 of 2 --