Lakhveer Singh v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
LAKHVEER SINGH,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 14-70261
Agency No. A096-137-872
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 24, 2016**
Before: REINHARDT, W. FLETCHER, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
Lakhveer Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his third motion to reopen
removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review
for abuse of discretion the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen, Najmabadi v.
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except
as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without
oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
FILED
JUN 2 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 14-70261
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 third motion to
reopen because it was untimely and number-barred, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2),
and Singh failed to demonstrate material changed circumstances in India to qualify
for a regulatory exception for filing a motion to reopen, see 8 C.F.R. §
1003.2(c)(1), (3)(ii); Najmabadi, 597 F.3d at 991-92 (evidence must be
“qualitatively different” to warrant reopening); Patel v. INS, 741 F.2d 1134, 1137
(9th Cir. 1984) (“[I]n the context of a motion to reopen, the BIA is not required to
consider allegations unsupported by affidavits or other evidentiary material.”).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --