BAHADUR SINGH V. MATTHEW WHITAKER, No. 18-70564 (9th Cir. 2018)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION NOV 30 2018 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT BAHADUR SINGH, No. Petitioner, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 18-70564 Agency No. A070-967-615 v. MEMORANDUM* MATTHEW G. WHITAKER, Acting Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted November 27, 2018** Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges. Bahadur Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s denial of his motion to reopen in absentia deportation proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of * 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). discretion the denial of a motion to reopen. Avagyan v. Holder, 646 F.3d 672, 674 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny the petition for review. Petitioner’s unopposed motion to supplement the administrative record (Docket Entry No. 11) is granted. In its July 11, 2018, order, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Singh’s second motion to reopen as untimely and number-barred, where he filed it more than 21 years after his final administrative order of deportation, see 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7), 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and he did not present sufficient evidence of due diligence for equitable tolling of the filing deadline, see Avagyan, 646 F.3d at 679 (equitable tolling is available to an alien who is prevented from timely filing a motion to reopen due to deception, fraud, or error, as long as petitioner exercises due diligence in discovering such circumstances). The record does not support Singh’s contentions that the BIA ignored evidence or arguments, misstated facts, or made unsupported judgments. See Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 2010). In light of this disposition, we do not reach Singh’s remaining contentions regarding ineffective assistance of counsel and his mental state. See Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 538 (9th Cir. 2004) (courts and agencies are not required to reach non-dispositive issues). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 2 18-70564

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.