AVTAR SINGH V. US DEPT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, No. 14-35088 (9th Cir. 2016)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 17 2016 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT AVTAR SINGH, Plaintiff - Appellant, No. 14-35088 D.C. No. 2:13-cv-00223-RAJ v. MEMORANDUM* US DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, an agency of the United States Government and ROBERT M. COWAN, Director of National Benefits Center, U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Services, Defendants - Appellees. KULVINDER SINGH, Plaintiff - Appellant, No. 14-35161 D.C. No. 3:12-cv-05474-RAJ v. UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES, an agency of the United States Government, Defendant - Appellee. * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington Richard A. Jones, District Judge, Presiding Argued and Submitted June 10, 2016 Seattle, Washington Before: EBEL,** PAEZ, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges. Given that both Avtar Singh and Kulvinder Singh are in removal proceedings, the governing regulations require that they pursue their adjustment applications before the Immigration Judge presiding over their removal hearings. See 8 C.F.R. §§ 245.2(a), 1245.2 (a)(1)(i). The district court in both cases correctly concluded that there is no statutory or regulatory duty that would support mandamus relief against USCIS. There is also no merit to Avtar Singh’s procedural due process argument. The district court’s dismissal of Avtar Singh’s case against DHS for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted is AFFIRMED. The district court’s grant of summary judgment to USCIS in Kulvinder Singh’s case is AFFIRMED. AFFIRMED. ** The Honorable David M. Ebel, Senior Circuit Judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, sitting by designation. 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.