Mandip Saranjit 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 concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MANDIP SARANJIT SINGH,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 10-73782
Agency No. A098-505-495
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted August 14, 2013**
Before: SCHROEDER, GRABER, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Mandip Saranjit Singh, a native of the United Arab Emirates and a 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
removal proceedings. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review
FILED
AUG 19 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

10-73782 2
for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen. Mohammed v. Gonzales,
400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir. 2005). We dismiss in part and deny in part the
petition for review.
We lack jurisdiction to consider Singh’s contention that his former attorney
provided ineffective assistance with his motion to reopen to adjust status based on
his marriage to a U.S. citizen because Singh failed to exhaust this claim before the
BIA. See Tijani v. Holder, 628 F.3d 1071, 1080 (9th Cir. 2010) (“We lack
jurisdiction to review legal claims not presented in an alien’s administrative
proceedings before the BIA.”).
In his opening brief, Singh failed to raise, and therefore waived, any
challenge to the BIA’s denial of his motion to reopen based on ineffective
assistance of counsel with respect to his asylum application. See Rizk v. Holder,
629 F.3d 1083, 1091 n. 3 (9th Cir. 2011) (a petitioner waives an issue by failing to
raise it in the opening brief).
To the extent Singh challenges the agency’s denial of his motion to reopen
to adjust status based on his marriage to a U.S. citizen, the challenge is unavailing
because, as he concedes, the evidence was insufficient to establish a strong

-- 2 of 3 --

10-73782 3
likelihood of a bona fide marriage. See Malhi v. INS, 336 F.3d 989, 994 (9th Cir.
2003); 8 C.F.R. § 204.2(a)(1)(iii)(B).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.

-- 3 of 3 --