FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION FEB 24 2022 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT GURPARTAP SINGH, No. 20-73659 Petitioner, Agency No. A200-943-733 v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted February 7, 2022** Seattle, Washington Before: BYBEE and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges, and SELNA,*** District Judge. Gurpartap Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for a review of the * 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). *** The Honorable James V. Selna, United States District Judge for the Central District of California, sitting by designation. Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) order denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings. This court previously denied review of the BIA’s decision affirming an immigration judge’s denial of Singh’s original application in which he applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). Singh v. Whitaker, 750 F. App’x 574 (9th Cir. 2019). Singh seeks reopening so that he may file a new application for these same three forms of relief based upon what he contends are new circumstances giving rise to a credible fear of future persecution. We deny Singh’s petition for review.1 We have jurisdiction to review an appeal from the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Mata v. Lynch, 576 U.S. 143, 147–48 (2015). We review such denials for abuse of discretion. INS v. Doherty, 502 U.S. 314, 323 (1992). “This Court defers to the Board’s exercise of discretion unless it acted arbitrarily, irrationally or contrary to law.” Toufighi v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 988, 992 (9th Cir. 2008) (citations omitted). The BIA’s determinations of purely legal questions are reviewed de novo, and its factual findings are reviewed for substantial evidence. Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir. 2010). “[O]ur review is limited to the actual grounds relied upon by the BIA.” Id. 1 Because the parties are familiar with the facts and procedural history, we do not recount them here. 2 (quoting Ramirez-Altamirano v. Holder, 563 F.3d 800, 804 (9th Cir. 2009), overruled on other grounds by Nunez-Reyes v. Holder, 646 F.3d 684 (9th Cir. 2011)). A motion to reopen is generally precluded if it is filed more than ninety days after the final administrative decision is rendered. 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2). There is an exception to this time-bar for applicants who produce previously unavailable evidence of materially changed country conditions that would, when considered together with the applicant’s prior evidence, establish prima facie eligibility for the relief sought. Toufighi, 538 F.3d at 993–94; see also Go v. Holder, 744 F.3d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 2014) (exception available for CAT claims in addition to asylum and withholding …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals