
    Kundan SINGH, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 08-70052.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Sept. 13, 2010.
    
    Filed Sept. 24, 2010.
    Marie Kayal, Immigration Practice Group, A Professional Corporation, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.
    
      John D. Williams, Esquire, Dalin Riley Holyoak, Esquire, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Kundan 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. Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 894 (9th Cir.2003). We deny the petition for review.

Singh contends the BIA erred in denying his “motion to reopen due to ‘changed circumstances’ pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(D)” because the motion was exempt from the time limitations for motions to reopen. Contrary to Singh’s contention, this argument is foreclosed by Chen v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1028, 1031-33 (9th Cir.2008).

We reject Singh’s contention that the BIA’s order was inadequate because the BIA’s order contained “a statement of its reasons for denying the petitioner relief adequate for us to conduct our review.” See Ghaly v. INS, 58 F.3d 1425, 1430 (9th Cir.1995).

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