Kulwinder 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
KULWINDER SINGH,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 09-71662
Agency No. A095-564-359
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 17, 2012**
Before: LEAVY, PAEZ, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
Kulwinder Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration
judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings. We
have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for an abuse of discretion the
FILED
APR 23 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

09-71662 2
BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen. Toufighi v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 988, 992 (9th
Cir. 2008). We deny the petition for review.
The agency 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 asylum, withholding of removal, or CAT relief. See Mendez-Gutierrez v.
Gonzales, 444 F.3d 1168, 1172 (9th Cir. 2006); Gomes v. Gonzales, 429 F.3d
1264, 1267 (9th Cir. 2005) (prior relocation was evidence that petitioners could
again relocate).
Singh’s contention that the agency failed to consider how his new evidence
related to a future fear of persecution is belied by the record.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --