Amarjit Singh v. Loretta E. Lynch, No. 14-3003 (8th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Per Curiam - Before Wollman, Murphy and Gruender, Circuit Judges] Petition for Review - Immigration. Denial of petitioners' fourth motion to reopen removal proceedings was not an abuse of discretion.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 14-3003 ___________________________ Amarjit Singh; Manjit Kaur; Dripinder Singh lllllllllllllllllllllPetitioners v. Loretta E. Lynch,1 Attorney General of the United States lllllllllllllllllllllRespondent ____________ Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals ____________ Submitted: May 5, 2015 Filed: May 14, 2015 [Unpublished] ____________ Before WOLLMAN, MURPHY, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Amarjit Singh, his wife Manjit Kaur, and their son Dripinder Singh, natives and citizens of India, petition for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration 1 Loretta E. Lynch is substituted for her predecessor, Eric H. Holder, Jr., as the Attorney General of the United States. See Fed. R. App. P. 43(c)(2). Appeals (BIA) denying their fourth motion to reopen removal proceedings. After careful review, we conclude that the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion as untimely and numerically barred. See Zheng v. Mukasey, 523 F.3d 893 (8th Cir. 2008). Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. ______________________________ -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.
