Singh v. Holder

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

SINGH v. HOLDER

Kundan SINGH, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 08-70052

2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 19852

Submitted September 13, 2010. -- September 24, 2010

NOTICE:

PLEASE REFER TO FEDERAL RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE RULE 32.1 GOVERNING THE CITATION TO UNPUBLISHED OPINIONS.

Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

Marie Kayal, Immigration Practice Group, A Professional Corporation, San Francisco, CA for the petitioner. OIL, John D. Williams, Esquire, Dalin Riley Holyoak, Esquire, Trial Attorney, DOJ - U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC; Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for the respondent.
OPINION

MEMORANDUM*

Kundan Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order denying his motion to reopen. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen. Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 894 (9th Cir. 2003). We deny the petition for review.

Singh contends the BIA erred in denying his "motion to reopen due to 'changed circumstances' pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(D)" because the motion was exempt from the time limitations for motions to reopen. Contrary to Singh's contention, this argument is foreclosed by Chen v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1028, 1031-33 (9th Cir. 2008).

We reject Singh's contention that the BIA's order was inadequate because the BIA's order contained "a statement of its reasons for denying the petitioner relief adequate for us to conduct our review." See Ghaly v. INS, 58 F.3d 1425, 1430 (9th Cir. 1995).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

*This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.