SUKHWINDER SINGH V. JEFFERSON SESSIONS, No. 14-73414 (9th Cir. 2017)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION FEB 22 2017 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT SUKHWINDER SINGH, AKA Sukhwinder Multani, No. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 14-73414 Agency No. A088-517-600 Petitioner, MEMORANDUM * v. JEFF B. SESSIONS, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted February 14, 2017** Before: GOODWIN, FARRIS, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges. Sukhwinder 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, Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir. 2010), and we deny the * 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). petition for review. We do not consider Singh’s challenges to the adverse credibility determination which the agency made in Singh’s underlying proceedings, and which this court previously reviewed in Singh v. Holder, No. 10-72011, 570 Fed. Appx. 644, 2014 WL 1492729 (9th Cir. 2014). The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Singh’s motion to reopen where he filed it more than three years after the BIA’s final decision, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Singh failed to establish changed country conditions in India to qualify for the regulatory exception to the time limit for filing a motion to reopen, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); see also Toufighi v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 988, 996-97 (9th Cir. 2008) (underlying adverse credibility determination rendered evidence of changed circumstances immaterial). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 2 14-73414

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.