Singh, et al v. Holder, No. 08-70052 (9th Cir. 2010)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS SEP 24 2010 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT KUNDAN SINGH, No. 08-70052 Petitioner, Agency No. A073-416-554 v. MEMORANDUM * ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted September 13, 2010 ** Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges. 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 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 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, 103133 (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. 2 08-70052

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.