Sarabjit Singh v. ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without**
oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NHY/Research
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SARABJIT SINGH,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 06-71386
Agency No. A079-587-819
MEMORANDUM *
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 17, 2009**
Before: ALARCÓN, TROTT, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
Sarabjit Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration
judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his motion for a continuance. We have jurisdiction
FILED
DEC 14 2009
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

NHY/Research 06-71386 2
under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Reviewing for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion
for a continuance, Baires v. INS, 856 F.2d 89, 91 (9th Cir. 1988), we deny the
petition for review.
The IJ did not abuse her discretion in denying Singh’s motion for a
continuance where he claimed he was tired and could not testify properly. See 8
C.F.R. § 1003.29 (IJ may grant a motion for continuance for good cause); Baires,
856 F.2d at 91.
It follows that Singh’s due process claim fails. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d
1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error for a petitioner to prevail on a due
process claim).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --