Singh v. Lynch, No. 12-74163 (9th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this CaseThe IJ granted petitioner, a citizen of India, voluntary departure with an alternate order of removal to India. The BIA affirmed the denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief, but remanded the case to the IJ. Petitioner did not file a petition to this court for review of the BIA order within 30 days of the June 2011 decision. On remand, the IJ gave petitioner the required advisals and again granted voluntary departure with an alternate order of removal to India. Petitioner again appealed the IJ’s decision to the BIA. The BIA dismissed the second appeal, declined to reinstate voluntary departure, and ordered petitioner removed to India pursuant to the IJ’s alternate order. Because the BIA’s June 2011 decision remanding solely for voluntary departure proceedings is a “final order of removal,” the IJ’s order became unreviewable on July 23, 2011 upon expiration of the 30 day period to petition for review to this court. In light of Pinto v. Holder and consistent with the Sixth and Tenth Circuits, the court concluded that it lacks jurisdiction over petitioner's current petition. Accordingly, petitioner remains subject to immediate removal to India and the court dismissed the petition.
Court Description: Immigration. The panel held that it lacked jurisdiction to review a petition for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals’ decision following remand to an immigration judge for voluntary departure advisals. In petitioner’s first appeal to the Board, the Board affirmed the IJ’s denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and Convention Against Torture relief, but remanded to the IJ for voluntary departure advisals. Petitioner did not file a petition for review within 30 days of that Board decision. On remand, the IJ again granted voluntary departure with an alternate order of removal. Petitioner again appealed the IJ’s decision to the Board, but did not allege that the IJ had made errors of law or fact on remand. The Board summarily dismissed petitioner’s second appeal, declined to reinstate voluntary departure, and ordered petitioner removed. Petitioner then filed a timely petition for review of that decision. Applying Rizo v. Lynch, 810 F.3d 688 (9th Cir. 2016), the panel held that the Board’s decision remanding for further proceedings as to voluntary departure did not affect the finality of an otherwise-final order of removal, and the IJ’s decision as to the merits of petitioner’s claims for relief became unreviewable upon expiration of the 30 day period to SINGH V. LYNCH 3 petition for review to this court. Because petitioner did not file a petition for review within that 30 day window, the panel held that it lacked jurisdiction over the petition.
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.