
    Kamaljit SINGH, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 12-71211.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted July 24, 2013.
    
    Filed July 30, 2013.
    Pardeep S. Grewal, Esquire, Law Offices of Pardeep S. Grewal, Castro Valley, CA, for Petitioner.
    Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Oil, Nicole Prairie, Trial, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: ALARCÓN, CLIFTON, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Kamaljit 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. Toufighi v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 988, 992 (9th Cir.2008). 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 asylum, withholding of removal, or relief under the Convention Against Torture. See Ladha v. INS, 215 F.3d 889, 897 (9th Cir.2000) (a well-founded fear may be established through credible, direct, and specific evidence supporting a reasonable fear of persecution); cf. Lim v. INS, 224 F.3d 929, 935 (9th Cir.2000) (threats established a well-founded fear where they were increasingly menacing). To the extent Singh contends the new evidence shows the police will be interested in him because of his past arrest, the argument fails. See Toufighi, 538 F.3d at 996-97 (new evidence was immaterial in light of prior adverse credibility finding).

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