HARSIMRAN SINGH V. JEFFERSON SESSIONS, No. 15-71739 (9th Cir. 2017)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED DEC 7 2017 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT HARSIMRAN SINGH, No. Petitioner, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 15-71739 Agency No. A078-974-211 v. MEMORANDUM* JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted December 5, 2017** San Francisco, California Before: KOZINSKI and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges, and KEELEY,*** District Judge. Harsimran Singh, 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 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). *** The Honorable Irene M. Keeley, United States District Judge for the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, sitting by designation. proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review the denial of a motion to reopen for abuse of discretion, Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791 (9th Cir. 2005), and deny the petition for review. 1. Singh sought adjustment of status and cancellation of removal under the Violence Against Women Act special rule to removal proceedings. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(2). This special rule allows the filing of motions to reopen within one year of the entry of a final order of removal. Id. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(iv). But, “the Attorney General may, in the Attorney General’s discretion, waive this time limitation in the case of an alien who demonstrates extraordinary circumstances or extreme hardship to the alien’s child.” Id. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(iv)(III). 2. Singh filed his motion to reopen more than ten years after the entry of his final order of removal, and the BIA did not abuse its discretion in concluding that the motion failed to establish either the extraordinary circumstances or extreme hardship to Singh’s child required by § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(iv)(III). DENIED. 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.