Sukhbir Singh v. Eric Holder, Jr., No. 09-1140 (4th Cir. 2009)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-1140 SUKHBIR SINGH, Petitioner, v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Submitted: December 2, 2009 Decided: December 30, 2009 Before WILKINSON, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Nicholas J. Mundy, NICHOLAS J. MUNDY, PLLC, Brooklyn, New York, for Petitioner. Tony West, Assistant Attorney General, Daniel E. Goldman, Senior Litigation Counsel, Andrew B. Insenga, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Sukhbir Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals ( Board ) dismissing his appeal from the immigration judge s order denying his second motion to reopen. We deny the petition for review. We review the denial of a motion to reopen for abuse of discretion. INS v. Doherty, 502 U.S. 314, 323 (1992); Stewart v. U.S. INS, 181 F.3d 587, 595 (4th Cir. 1999). Motions to reopen are disfavored . . . [because] every delay works to the advantage of the deportable remain in the United States. court will reverse arbitrary, the irrational, alien wishes merely Doherty, 502 U.S. at 323. Board s or who decision contrary to only The it is Sevoian law. if to v. Ashcroft, 290 F.3d 166, 174 (3d Cir. 2002). By regulation, a motion to reopen must be filed no later than 90 days after the date on which the administrative decision at issue becomes final. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2) (2009). The ninety day time limit does not apply (1) if the alien is claiming changed country conditions arising in the country of nationality or the country to which removal has been ordered, if such evidence is material and was not available and would not have proceeding, been discovered or presented at the previous 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii) (2006), or (2) if 2 the alien is seeking to reopen a removal order entered in absentia and files the motion within 180 days of the entry of the order of removal or if the alien failed to receive notice of the hearing or did not appear through no fault of the alien because the alien was in federal or state custody. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(4)(ii) (2009). Insofar as Singh believes he did not receive proper notice of the hearing, that issue is abandoned because he does See Yousefi v. INS, not raise the issue in his opening brief. 260 F.3d 318, 326 (4th Cir. 2001); Edwards v. City of Goldsboro, 178 F.3d 231, 241 n.6 (4th Cir. 1999). Board did not abuse its discretion in We further find the dismissing the appeal because Singh failed to show he was entitled to any of the relief he was seeking. Accordingly, dispense with oral we deny argument the petition because the for facts review. and We legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. PETITION DENIED 3
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.
