Kuldip Singh v. Eric Holder, Jr.
Opinion
Opinion
MEMORANDUM
Kuldip 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 abuse of discretion the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen, Najmabadi v. 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 fifth motion to reopen as untimely and number-barred because the motion was filed over six years after the BIA’s final decision, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2 (c)(2), and Singh failed to establish changed circumstances in India to qualify for the regulatory exception to the time and number limitations, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2 (c)(3)(ii); Najmabadi, 597 F.3d at 988-89 (evidence of changed circumstances must be qualitatively different from what could have been presented at prior hearing).
Singh’s contention that the BIA failed to review the new evidence accompanying his fifth motion to reopen lacks merit. See Larita-Martinez v. INS, 220 F.3d 1092, 1095-96 (9th Cir.2000).