Singh v. Lynch

Ninth Circuit

Singh v. Lynch

609 F. App'x 470

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedJuly 7, 2015

DocketNo. 13-73833

StatusPublished

This text of 609 F. App'x 470 (Singh v. Lynch) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Singh v. Lynch, 609 F. App'x 470 (9th Cir. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

**

Sukhnand Singh, a native and citizen of India, and his family petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying their motion to reopen. 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). We deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners’ untimely motion to reopen because they did not establish material changed circumstances in India to qualify for the regulatory exception to the time limit. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); Najmabadi, 597 F.3d at 988-89 (petitioner’s evidence was not “qualitatively different” because it described conditions similar to those in evidence at the prior proceedings). We reject petitioners’ contention that the BIA failed to properly.consider their evidence.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

MEMORANDUM

**

Sukhnand Singh, a native and citizen of India, and his family petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying their motion to reopen. 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). We deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners’ untimely motion to reopen because they did not establish material changed circumstances in India to qualify for the regulatory exception to the time limit. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); Najmabadi, 597 F.3d at 988-89 (petitioner’s evidence was not “qualitatively different” because it described conditions similar to those in evidence at the prior proceedings). We reject petitioners’ contention that the BIA failed to properly.consider their evidence.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

609 F. App'x 470, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/singh-v-lynch-ca9-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack