INDERJIT SINGH V. LORETTA E. LYNCH, No. 12-73921 (9th Cir. 2016)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED JUN 22 2016 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT INDERJIT SINGH, No. Petitioner, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 12-73921 Agency No. A089-679-669 v. MEMORANDUM* LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted June 14, 2016** Before: BEA, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges. Inderjit 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 review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen. Toufighi v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 988, 992 (9th Cir. 2008). We deny the petition for * 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). review. We do not consider Singh’s contentions regarding the agency’s underlying decisions which were previously reviewed by this court in Singh v. Holder, 535 F. App’x 551 (9th Cir. July 31, 2013). The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Singh’s motion to reopen because it was untimely, see 8 C.F.R. §1003.2(c)(2), Singh failed to establish the evidence predating his July 2009 immigration hearing was not available and could not have been discovered or presented at his hearing, see 8 C.F.R. §1003.2(c)(1), and Singh failed to establish his motion otherwise fell within the regulatory exception to the time limitation for filing a motion to reopen, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 988-89 (9th Cir. 2010) (evidence must be “qualitatively different” to warrant reopening). We reject Singh’s contention that the BIA ignored his evidence or addressed it improperly. See Najmabadi, 597 F.3d at 990 (the BIA adequately considered the evidence and sufficiently announced its decision). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 2 12-73921

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.