Hardeep Singh Bhamra 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
HARDEEP SINGH BHAMRA,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 10-71618
Agency No. A079-605-153
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.
Hardeep Singh Bhamra, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of
a Board of Immigrations Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his second motion to
reopen removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We
FILED
SEP 17 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

10-71618 2
review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, Toufighi v.
Mukasey, 538 F.3d 988, 992 (9th Cir. 2008), and we deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Bhamra’s motion to reopen
as untimely because the motion was filed over five years after the BIA’s final
decision, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Bhamra did not establish a material
change in country conditions, see Malty v. Ashcroft, 381 F.3d 942, 945 (9th Cir.
2004) (“The critical question is... whether circumstances have changed sufficiently
that a petitioner who previously did not have a legitimate claim for asylum now has
a well-founded fear of future persecution.”).
Petitioner has waived any challenge to the BIA’s findings regarding
ineffective assistance of counsel. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256,
1259-60 (9th Cir. 1996) (“Issues raised in a brief that are not supported by
argument are deemed abandoned.”).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --