Ranjit 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
RANJIT SINGH,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 10-71928
Agency No. A097-591-834
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted September 10, 2012**
Before: WARDLAW, CLIFTON, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Ranjit Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board
of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen removal
proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for an abuse
FILED
SEP 14 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

10-71928 2
of discretion the 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 BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Singh’s motion to reopen as
untimely where the motion was filed over three years after the BIA’s final 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 for filing motions to reopen, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); Najmabadi v.
Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 987-90 (9th Cir. 2010); Toufighi, 538 F.3d at 996-97
(underlying adverse credibility determination rendered evidence of changed
circumstances immaterial).
Singh’s contention that the BIA did not consider evidence fails, because he
has not overcome the presumption that the BIA reviewed the record. See
Fernandez v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 592, 603 (9th Cir. 2006). Singh’s contention that
the BIA failed to adequately explain its decision also fails. See Najmabadi, 597
F.3d at 990 (“[t]he [BIA] does not have to write an exegesis on every contention.”)
(internal quotes omitted).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --