Kuljinder Singh v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
KULJINDER SINGH,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 14-71722
Agency No. A205-422-371
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 24, 2016**
Before: LEAVY, FERNANDEZ, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
Kuljinder 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 denial of his motion to reopen removal proceedings conducted in absentia.
We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the
FILED
MAR 04 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* 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).

-- 1 of 2 --

denial of a motion to reopen, and review de novo questions of law. Sembiring v.
Gonzales, 499 F.3d 981, 985 (9th Cir. 2007). We deny the petition for review.
The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Singh’s motion to reopen
where the hearing notice was sent by regular mail to the address last provided to
the immigration court, and he failed to rebut the presumption of effective service.
See Popa v. Holder, 571 F.3d 890, 897-98 (9th Cir. 2009) (“The government
satisfies notice requirements ‘by mailing notice of the hearing to an alien at the
address last provided to the INS.’”); Sembiring, 499 F.3d at 986-88 (describing
factors relevant to overcome presumption of effective service sent by regular mail).
Singh does not claim to have been residing at the address he provided to the
immigration court, Salta v. INS, 314 F.3d 1076, 1077 (9th Cir. 2002), he did not
file a change of address form despite being informed of his responsibility to do so,
and he did not provide an affidavit from anyone residing at the address in question.
Singh’s contentions that the agency applied the wrong legal standard and
failed to follow its own regulations are not supported by the record. Accordingly,
his related due process claims fail. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir.
2000) (requiring error and prejudice to prevail on a due process claim).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
14-71722 2

-- 2 of 2 --