SINGH V. HOLDER, No. 07-71072 (9th Cir. 2012)

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS NOV 19 2012 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT BALDEV SINGH, No. 07-71072 Petitioner, Agency No. A076-841-573 v. MEMORANDUM * ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted November 13, 2012 ** Before: CANBY, TROTT, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges. Baldev Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals ( BIA ) order denying his motion to reopen. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. ยง 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, and review de novo due process claims. Mohammed * 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). v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review. The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Singh s motion to reopen because he failed to show that he was prejudiced by the alleged ineffective assistance of his former counsel. See id. at 793-94 (prejudice results when the performance of counsel was so inadequate that it may have affected the outcome of the proceedings (internal quotation marks omitted)). To the extent Singh now contends that his former attorney was also ineffective for failing to inform him of the need to immediately complete a Form I130 petition, we lack jurisdiction to consider this contention because Singh did not raise it before the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004) (this court lacks jurisdiction to review contentions not raised before the agency). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part. 2 07-71072