Kesar 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 finds this case suitable for decision without**
oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
LR/Research
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
KESAR SINGH,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 07-71960
Agency No. A077-800-843
MEMORANDUM *
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted January 11, 2010**
Before: BEEZER, TROTT, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Kesar Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board
of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen. Our
jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the
FILED
JAN 21 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

LR/Research 07-71960 2
denial of a motion to reopen, Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 894 (9th Cir.
2003), and we deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Singh’s motion to reopen
based on changed circumstances because the motion was filed more than ninety
days after the BIA’s 2002 order, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Singh failed to
present sufficient evidence of changed circumstances in India to qualify for the
regulatory exception to the time limit, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); see
also Malty v. Ashcroft, 381 F.3d 942, 945 (9th Cir. 2004).
To the extent Singh raises contentions regarding his underlying claim for
relief, this court has already reached those issues in an earlier petition for review.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

-- 2 of 2 --