SURINDER SINGH, AKA Parmjit Singh Sadhara, AKA Barjinder Singh Virk v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SURINDER SINGH, AKA Parmjit Singh
Sadhara, AKA Barjinder Singh Virk,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 12-72402
Agency No. A093-172-927
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 18, 2015**
Before: TASHIMA, OWENS, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
Surinder 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. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review
for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, Toufighi v. Mukasey, 538
FILED
NOV 24 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* 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).

-- 1 of 2 --

F.3d 988, 992 (9th Cir. 2008), and 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 as
untimely, where the motion was filed more than two years after the final order of
removal, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Singh failed 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); Toufighi, 538 F.3d at 996-97 (evidence was immaterial in light
of prior adverse credibility determination).
In denying Singh’s motion to reopen, the BIA determined the evidence he
presented was inherently not believable and thus there was no adequate basis for
granting the untimely motion. Singh does not challenge the BIA’s dispositive
finding that his evidence was inherently unbelievable. See Martinez-Serrano v.
INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir. 1996) (issues not specifically raised and
argued in party’s opening brief are waived).
We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s discretionary decision declining to
exercise its sua sponte authority under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a). See Mejia-Hernandez
v. Holder, 633 F.3d 818, 823-24 (9th Cir. 2011).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
12-72402 2

-- 2 of 2 --