SINGH SARABJEET V. ERIC HOLDER, JR., No. 11-72991 (9th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JUN 17 2014 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS SINGH SARABJEET, a.k.a. Sarabjeet Singh, No. 11-72991 Agency No. A078-364-891 Petitioner, MEMORANDUM* v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted June 12, 2014** Before: McKEOWN, WARDLAW, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judge. Singh Sarabjeet, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals ( BIA ) denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen. Avagyan v. Holder, * 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). 646 F.3d 672, 674 (9th Cir. 2011). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review. The BIA did not abuse its discretion by denying as untimely Sarabjeet s motion to reopen based on ineffective assistance of counsel because he filed his motion to reopen more than eight years after issuance of his final order of removal, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and failed to demonstrate the due diligence necessary to warrant equitable tolling of the filing deadline, see Avagyan, 646 F.3d at 679. In light of this disposition, we need not reach Sarabjeet s nondispositive contentions regarding his former attorney s ineffective assistance and his eligibility for adjustment of status. See Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 538 (9th Cir. 2004) ( As a general rule courts . . . are not required to make findings on issues the decision of which is unnecessary to the results they reach. ). To the extent that Sarabjeet now alleges that a second, unnamed former attorney gave him erroneous legal advice, we lack jurisdiction to consider this unexhausted claim. See Tijani v. Holder, 628 F.3d 1071, 1080 (9th Cir. 2010) ( We lack jurisdiction to review legal claims not presented in an alien s administrative proceedings before the BIA. ). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part. 2 11-72991
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.
