Gurvinder Singh v. Loretta Lynch, No. 14-60715 (5th Cir. 2015)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Case: 14-60715 Document: 00513050495 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/20/2015 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 14-60715 Summary Calendar United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED May 20, 2015 GURVINDER SINGH, Petitioner Lyle W. Cayce Clerk v. LORETTA LYNCH, U. S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals BIA No. A201 292 076 Before SMITH, PRADO, and OWEN, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Gurvinder Singh petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’s (BIA) order denying his motion to reconsider. Singh contends that the BIA failed to construe his motion to reconsider as a motion to reopen based on ineffective assistance of counsel and erred in concluding that his motion was untimely and number-barred. The respondent moves for summary disposition of the petition for review in lieu of filing a brief. Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4. * Case: 14-60715 Document: 00513050495 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/20/2015 No. 14-60715 The BIA construed Singh’s motion as, in part, a motion to reopen. An alien may file only one motion to reopen. 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(A); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2). The motion at issue is Singh’s third motion to reopen. The exception to the numerical restriction for a motion to reopen an order entered in absentia or in removal proceedings is not applicable to his motion to reopen. See §§ 1003.2(c)(3); § 1003.23(b)(4)(ii). Thus, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion as number-barred. See Zhao v. Gonzales, 404 F.3d 295, 303 (5th Cir. 2005). Singh’s petition for review is DENIED. The respondent’s motion for summary disposition of the petition for review in lieu of filing a brief is GRANTED. 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.