Singh v. Blanche

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 13 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

GURDEV SINGH; SIMARJIT KAUR; S. No. 25-4944 S.; A. K., Agency Nos. A220-350-486 Petitioners, A220-350-485 A220-350-487 v. A220-350-488 TODD BLANCHE, Acting Attorney General, MEMORANDUM*

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted April 30, 2026**

Before: RAWLINSON, MENDOZA, and DESAI, Circuit Judges.

Gurdev Singh (Singh) petitions for review of a Board of Immigration

Appeals (BIA) order dismissing his motion to reopen his asylum claim based on

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). changed country conditions.1 We deny the petition.

“We review the denial of a motion to reopen for abuse of discretion.” Bent

v. Garland, 115 F.4th 934, 939 (9th Cir. 2024), as amended (citation omitted).

“The BIA abuses its discretion when it acts arbitrarily, irrationally, or contrary to

the law, and when it fails to provide a reasoned explanation for its actions.” Id.

(citation and internal quotation marks omitted).

An Immigration Judge (IJ) previously denied Singh’s asylum claim as

barred by his firm resettlement in Italy, but granted his application for withholding

of removal. Unlike asylum, there is no clear derivative status for withholding of

removal, and Singh’s family did not file their own applications for relief, so the IJ

ordered Singh’s family removed to India. See Ali v. Ashcroft, 394 F.3d 780, 782

n.1 (9th Cir. 2005).

Ordinarily, a motion to reopen must be filed within 90 days of a final order

of removal. See Eskilian v. Bondi, 172 F.4th 682, 687 (9th Cir. 2026). Singh

asserts that he is excepted from this time limitation because his motion to reopen is

based on changed country conditions, and his new evidence is both material and

was not available during the previous proceeding. See Rodriguez v. Garland, 990

F.3d 1205, 1209 (9th Cir. 2021) (describing the standard to grant a motion to

1 Singh brought his asylum claim on behalf of himself with his wife, Simarjit Kaur, and two minor children listed as derivative beneficiaries.

2 25-4944 reopen based on changed country conditions).

The BIA may deny a motion to reopen if: (1) the motion is procedurally

deficient; (2) the motion does not establish a prima facie case for the relief sought;

or (3) as a matter of discretion. See Lemus-Escobar v. Bondi, 158 F.4th 944, 962

(9th Cir. 2025), as amended. The BIA denied Singh’s motion to reopen for failure

to establish prima facie eligibility for relief.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion by denying Singh’s motion to reopen.

Singh submitted country conditions evidence relating to his fear of persecution in

India. However, this newly submitted evidence does not establish a prima facie

case for relief from the agency’s prior determination that Singh was barred from

asylum based on his firm resettlement in Italy. See Oscar v. Bondi, 135 F.4th 777,

784 (9th Cir. 2025). Singh acknowledged that the agency applied the firm

resettlement bar, and he made no argument that his new evidence alters the firm

resettlement analysis in any way. Singh’s reliance on evidence that was already

presented to the agency is foreclosed by our previous determination that the

evidence failed to overcome the firm resettlement bar. See Singh v. Bondi, No. 23-

3854, 2025 WL 1441151, at *1 (9th Cir. May 20, 2025). Accordingly, the BIA did

not abuse its discretion by denying Singh’s motion to reopen. See Bent, 115 F.4th

at 939.

3 25-4944 PETITION DENIED.2

2 The stay of removal will remain in place until the mandate issues. The motion for stay of removal (Dkt. # 10) is otherwise denied.

4 25-4944