
    Bhupinder SINGH, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 08-70481.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted July 14, 2008.
    
    Filed July 23, 2008.
    Babak Pourtavoosi, Pannun The Firm, P.C., Jackson Heights, NY, for Petitioner.
    Jem C. Sponzo, Carol Federighi, Esq., Senior Litigation Counsel, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: SCHROEDER, LEAVY and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

This is a petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying petitioner’s motion to reopen removal proceedings.

We review the BIA’s ruling on a motion to reopen for abuse of discretion. Perez v. Mukasey, 516 F.3d 770, 773 (9th Cir.2008).

An alien who is subject to a final order of removal is limited to filing one motion to reopen removal proceedings, and that motion must be filed within 90 days of the date of entry of a final order of removal. 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(A), (C)(i); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2). The time limitation does not apply to motions to reopen to reapply for asylum or withholding of deportation based on changed circumstances if such evidence is material and was not available and could not have been discovered or presented at the previous hearing. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(h).

A review of the administrative record demonstrates that there is substantial evidence to support the BIA’s decision that petitioner failed to demonstrate that the exception to the time limitation applied. See Malty v. Ashcroft, 381 F.3d 942, 945 (9th Cir.2004) (evidence of changed circumstances must establish prima facie case for asylum). Accordingly, respondent’s motion for summary disposition is granted because the questions raised by this petition for review are so insubstantial as not to require further argument. See United States v. Hooton, 693 F.2d 857, 858 (9th Cir.1982) (per curiam).

Accordingly, respondent’s motion for summary disposition is granted because the questions raised by this petition for review are so insubstantial as not to require further argument. See United States v. Hooton, 693 F.2d 857, 858 (9th Cir.1982) (per curiam) (stating standard).

All other pending motions are denied as moot. The temporary stay of removal shall continue in effect until issuance of the mandate.

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