Paramjit 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
PARAMJIT SINGH,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 06-75849
Agency No. A074-153-432
MEMORANDUM *
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 5, 2010**
Before: RYMER, McKEOWN, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Paramjit Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying Singh’s second motion to
reopen removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We
review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, Toufighi v.
FILED
APR 16 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

06-75849 2
Mukasey, 538 F.3d 988, 992 (9th Cir. 2008), and review de novo ineffective
assistance of counsel claims, Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th
Cir. 2005). We deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Singh’s motion to reopen as
untimely and number-barred because it was Singh’s second motion to reopen and it
was filed two years after the BIA’s final order of removal. See 8 U.S.C. §
1229a(c)(7)(C)(i) (motion to reopen must be filed within ninety days of final order
of removal); 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(A) (a party may file only one motion to
reopen).
The BIA also did not abuse its discretion in failing to reopen Singh’s case on
the basis of ineffective assistance of former counsel, because even if Singh’s
former counsel’s performance were deficient, Singh failed to establish the alleged
deficiencies prejudiced his case. See Ortiz v. INS, 179 F.3d 1148, 1153 (9th Cir.
1999).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --