Opinion
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Thus, we deny Singh's request for oral argument.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION. (See Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure Rule 32.1)
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Agency No. A078-974-211.
For HARSIMRAN SINGH, Petitioner: Robert Bradford Jobe, Esquire, Attorney, LAW OFFICES OF ROBERT B. JOBE, San Francisco, CA; Babak Pourtavoosi, PANNUN THE FIRM, P.C., Jackson Heights, NY.
For ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent: OIL, Kelly J. Walls, Esquire, Trial Attorney, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC; Chief Counsel ICE, OFFICE OF THE CHIEF COUNSEL, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA.
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Harsimran Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' (" BIA" ) denial of 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 the Singh's third motion to reopen as untimely and number-barred where the motion was filed more than seven years after the BIA's final administrative order, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Singh failed to establish materially changed circumstances in India to qualify for the regulatory exception to the time and numerical limitations for motions to reopen, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); Najmabadi, 597 F.3d at 987 (new evidence " must be 'qualitatively different' from the evidence presented at the previous hearing" ); see also Toufighi v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 988, 996-97 (9th Cir. 2008) (BIA did not abuse its discretion in concluding alien failed to establish prima facie eligibility, where motion to reopen was based on underlying claim found not credible).
We reject Singh's contentions that the BIA erred in its treatment of the evidence submitted. See Najmabadi, 597 F.3d at 990-91 (BIA must consider issues raised and announce its decision in a manner sufficient for reviewing court to perceive that it has heard and thought and not merely reacted).
To the extent Singh attempts to challenge the agency's underlying credibility determination, we decline to review this claim because this court already decided the issue in Singh v. Gonzales, No. 04-71721, 206 Fed.Appx. 707, 2006 WL 3313170 (9th Cir. November 14, 2006).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.