Satnam 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
SATNAM SINGH,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 08-74835
Agency No. A079-602-354
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 5, 2010**
Before: RYMER, McKEOWN, 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 third motion to reopen
removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for
FILED
APR 19 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

08-74835 2
abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen. Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d
889, 894 (9th Cir. 2003). We deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Singh’s third motion to
reopen as time-barred and number-barred where 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 establish 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) (in order to prevail on a motion to reopen based
on changed country conditions, petitioner must demonstrate that new evidence,
together with the evidence presented at the original hearing, establishes prima facie
eligibility for relief sought).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --