Akbal Singh Nijjar 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
AKBAL SINGH NIJJAR,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 09-71650
Agency No. A073-417-086
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 26, 2012**
Before: SCHROEDER, HAWKINS, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.
Akbal Singh Nijjar, 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
FILED
JUL 09 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

09-71650 2
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 Nijjar’s second motion to
reopen as untimely and number-barred where the successive motion was filed
nearly six years after the BIA’s final decision, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and
Nijjar failed to demonstrate changed circumstances in India to qualify for the
regulatory exception to the time and number limitations, see 8 C.F.R.
§ 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); Najmabadi, 597 F.3d at 988-89.
We reject Nijjar’s contention that the BIA did not adequately examine his
evidence. See Fernandez v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 592, 603 (9th Cir. 2006) (finding
petitioner had not overcome the presumption that the BIA reviewed the record);
see also Najmabadi, 597 F.3d at 990 (the BIA “does not have to write an exegesis
on every contention”). Further, Nijjar’s contentions that the BIA failed to apply
the proper legal standard or address his claim for relief under the Convention
Against Torture are belied by the record.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --