MANJINDER SINGH V. ERIC HOLDER, JR., No. 12-73844 (9th Cir. 2014)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 21 2014 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MANJINDER SINGH, No. 12-73844 Petitioner, Agency No. A097-105-712 v. MEMORANDUM* ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted May 13, 2014** Before: CLIFTON, BEA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges. Manjinder 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 * 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). abuse of discretion the BIA s denial of a motion to reopen. Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny the petition for review. The BIA did not abuse its discretion by denying Singh s motion to reopen as untimely where the motion was filed more than five years after the BIA s final order, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Singh failed to demonstrate materially changed conditions in India 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 v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 988, 995-97 (9th Cir. 2008) (underlying adverse credibility determination rendered evidence of changed circumstances immaterial); see also Najmabadi, 597 F.3d at 987 (evidence must be qualitatively different from the evidence presented at the previous hearing). We reject Singh s contention that the BIA failed to adequately consider the evidence presented with the motion to reopen. See Najmabadi, 597 F.3d at 990-91. Finally, we reject Singh s contention that the BIA s denial of his motion violated due process. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error and prejudice to prevail on a due process challenge). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 2 12-73844

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.