Yanyun Ren v. Eric Holder, Jr.
Opinion
MEMORANDUM **
Satnam Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. 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 petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Singh’s motion to reopen as untimely because the motion was filed over five years after the BIA’s final decision, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Singh failed to demonstrate changed circumstances 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); Najmabadi, 597 F.3d at 988-89. We reject Singh’s contention that the BIA did not consider the country reports submitted with his motion. See Fernandez v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 592, 603 (9th Cir. 2006) (petitioner did not overcome the presumption that the BIA reviewed the record).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- Satnam SINGH, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
- Status
- Unpublished