Baldev 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
BALDEV SINGH,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 11-71893
Agency No. A044-670-022
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted January 15, 2013**
Before: SILVERMAN, BEA, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
Baldev Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions pro se for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen. Our
jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the
FILED
JAN 16 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

11-71893
denial of a motion to reopen. Toufighi v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 988, 992 (9th Cir.
2008). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Singh’s motion to reopen
because Singh did not demonstrate that the evidence he submitted with his motion
was new and previously unavailable. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(1) (evidence
offered with a motion to reopen must have been unavailable and unable to have
been discovered or presented at the former hearing); see also Toufighi, 538 F.3d at
996. Contrary to Singh’s contention, the agency did not rely on general country
conditions to deny his claim.
We lack jurisdiction to review Singh’s contentions regarding the
immigration judge and his hearing, as well as his contentions regarding a fear of
harm as an ex-felon and a fear due to his human rights political opinion, because
he did not exhaust them to the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678
(9th Cir. 2004).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

-- 2 of 2 --