GOPAO SINGH V. ERIC HOLDER, JR., No. 10-73024 (9th Cir. 2013)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JUN 20 2013 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS GOPAO GOPAL SINGH, No. 10-73024 Petitioner, Agency No. A095-784-626 v. MEMORANDUM* ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted June 18, 2013** Before: TALLMAN, M. SMITH, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges. Gopao Gopal Singh, a native and citizen of Nepal, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals ( BIA ) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture ( CAT ). We dismiss * 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). Singh s petition for review. A petition for review must be filed not later than 30 days after the date of the final order of removal. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1). The 30-day filing period for a petition for review is mandatory and jurisdictional. See Stone v. INS, 514 U.S. 386, 405 (1995); Magtanong v. Gonzales, 494 F.3d 1190, 1191 (9th Cir. 2007) (order) (per curiam). A mandatory and jurisdictional rule cannot be forfeited or waived, and courts lack the authority to create equitable exceptions to such a rule. Magtanong, 494 F.3d at 1191 (internal citation omitted). Even with the benefit of the mailbox rule, Singh has not shown he filed his petition for review within the mandatory prescribed time, because Singh did not direct that the petition for review be filed with the court when he first gave it to prison officials for mailing. See Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 273 (1988) ( delivery of a notice of appeal to prison authorities would not under any theory constitute a filing unless the notice were delivered for forwarding to the . . . court. ). Thus, we dismiss Singh s petition for review and deny all pending motions as moot. See Magtanong , 494 F.3d at 1191-92. PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED. 2 10-73024

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.