
    Malkiat SINGH, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 10-73242.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Dec. 19, 2012.
    
    Filed Dec. 28, 2012.
    Christopher John Stender, Esquire, Federal Immigration Counselors, Inc., Ape, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.
    Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, OIL, Christopher C. Fuller, Esquire, Senior Litigation Counsel, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Malkiat Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, Toufighi v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 988, 992 (9th Cir.2008), and we deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Singh’s motion to reopen because it considered the record and acted within its broad discretion in determining that the evidence was insufficient to establish pri-ma facie eligibility for the relief sought. See id. at 996-97; see also Cano-Merida v. INS, 311 F.3d 960, 965-66 (9th Cir.2002). Given this conclusion, we reject Singh’s contentions that the BIA erred by failing to address his additional arguments regarding his asylum and Convention Against Torture claims.

We also reject Singh’s contention that the BIA did not adequately consider his evidence. See Fernandez v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 592, 603 (9th Cir.2006) (finding petitioner had not overcome the presumption that the BIA reviewed the record); see also Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir.2010) (the BIA “does not have to write an exegesis on every contention”). Finally, contrary to Singh’s contention, the BIA applied the proper legal standard.

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