Opinion
No. 05-77325.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed.R.App.P. 34(a)(2).
Filed June 11, 2007.
Tsz-Hai Huang, Rai Associates, PC, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.
Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, Edward A. Olsen, Esq., USSF — Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Agency No. A75-309-622.
Before: LEAVY, RYMER, and T.G. NELSON, Circuit Judges.
MEMORANDUM
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Amarjit 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 pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, see Konstantinova v. INS, 195 F.3d 528, 529 (9th Cir. 1999), and we deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Singh's motion to reopen as untimely where Singh filed the motion more than twenty months after the BIA's final order of removal, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and failed to submit evidence of changed country conditions in India that would excuse the late filing, cf. Malty v. Ashcroft, 381 F.3d 942, 945 (9th Cir. 2004) (requiring circumstances to "have changed sufficiently that a petitioner who previously did not have a legitimate claim for asylum now has a well-founded fear of future persecution").