Check how courts have cited this case. Use our free citator for the most current treatment.
No. 8694563
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Singh v. Lynch
No. 8694563 · Decided July 7, 2015
No. 8694563·Ninth Circuit · 2015·
FlawFinder last updated this page Apr. 2, 2026
Case Details
Court
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided
July 7, 2015
Citation
No. 8694563
Disposition
See opinion text.
Full 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.
Plain English Summary
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.
Key Points
01MEMORANDUM ** 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.
02We review for abuse of discretion the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen.
03The 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.
04§ 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).
Frequently Asked Questions
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.
FlawCheck shows no negative treatment for Singh v. Lynch in the current circuit citation data.
This case was decided on July 7, 2015.
Use the citation No. 8694563 and verify it against the official reporter before filing.