Dulla 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
DULLA SINGH,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 10-73008
Agency No. A079-290-290
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 19, 2012**
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Dulla 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 abuse of
FILED
DEC 21 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

10-73008 2
discretion the BIA’s 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 Singh’s second motion to
reopen as untimely and number-barred because the motion was filed nearly 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 and number limitations, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); Najmabadi,
597 F.3d at 988-89 (evidence of changed circumstances must be qualitatively
different from what could have been presented at prior hearing).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --