RAJWINDER SINGH V. JEFFERSON SESSIONS, III, No. 18-70064 (9th Cir. 2018)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED SEP 20 2018 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT RAJWINDER SINGH, No. Petitioner, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 18-70064 Agency No. A099-857-409 v. MEMORANDUM* JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted September 12, 2018** Before: LEAVY, HAWKINS, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges. Rajwinder Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reconsider. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reconsider or reopen, Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, * 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). 791 (9th Cir. 2005), and we deny the petition for review. The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Singh’s motion to reconsider where Singh failed to identify any error of fact or law in the BIA’s prior order. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1) (a motion to reconsider must specify errors of fact or law in a prior decision); Ma v. Ashcroft, 361 F.3d 553, 558 (9th Cir. 2004) (discussing the standard for a motion to reconsider). In construing Singh’s motion as a motion to reopen, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying it where Singh failed to demonstrate that the new evidence he submitted would likely have changed the outcome of his case. See Shin v. Mukasey, 547 F.3d 1019, 1025 (9th Cir. 2008) (“Aliens who seek to remand or reopen proceedings to pursue relief bear a ‘heavy burden’ of proving that, if proceedings were reopened, the new evidence would likely change the result in the case.” (citation omitted)). We reject Singh’s contention that the BIA failed to construe his motion to reconsider as a motion to reopen. PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 2 18-70064
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.
