Check how courts have cited this case. Use our free citator for the most current treatment.
No. 8700179
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Singh v. Sessions
No. 8700179 · Decided October 3, 2017
No. 8700179·Ninth Circuit · 2017·
FlawFinder last updated this page Apr. 2, 2026
Case Details
Court
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided
October 3, 2017
Citation
No. 8700179
Disposition
See opinion text.
Full Opinion
MEMORANDUM ** Harjinder Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying 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). We deny the petition for review. The BIA did not abuse its discretion by denying Singh’s motion to reopen where it was untimely and number-barred, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2 (c)(2), and where Singh failed to establish materially changed circumstances in India to qualify for the regulatory exception to the time and number limitations for motions to reopen, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2 (c)(3)(ii); Toufighi v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 988, 992 (9th Cir. 2008) (evidence immaterial in light of prior adverse credibility determination). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Plain English Summary
MEMORANDUM ** Harjinder Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings.
Key Points
01MEMORANDUM ** Harjinder Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings.
02We review for abuse of discretion the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen.
03The BIA did not abuse its discretion by denying Singh’s motion to reopen where it was untimely and number-barred, see 8 C.F.R.
04§ 1003.2 (c)(2), and where Singh failed to establish materially changed circumstances in India to qualify for the regulatory exception to the time and number limitations for motions to reopen, see 8 C.F.R.
Frequently Asked Questions
MEMORANDUM ** Harjinder Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings.
FlawCheck shows no negative treatment for Singh v. Sessions in the current circuit citation data.
This case was decided on October 3, 2017.
Use the citation No. 8700179 and verify it against the official reporter before filing.