Opinion
No. 14-70102
12-14-2015
AMANDEEP SINGH, Petitioner, v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
Agency No. A200-892-050 MEMORANDUM On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Before: WALLACE, RAWLINSON, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Amandeep Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge's ("IJ") denial of his motion to reopen his 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 dismissed Singh's appeal of the IJ's denial of his motion to reopen to rescind the removal order entered in absentia on the sole basis that the motion was untimely. Singh does not challenge this finding. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir. 1996) (issues not specifically raised and argued in a party's opening brief are waived). Thus, we deny the petition for review with respect to the motion to reopen to rescind the removal order entered in absentia.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Singh's appeal of the immigration judge's denial of his motion to reopen based on changed country conditions because he did not establish prima facie eligibility for the relief sought. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(4)(i); Toufighi v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 988, 996 (9th Cir. 2007) (stating the hurdles a petitioner needs to clear in order to prevail on a motion to reopen based on changed country conditions).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.