Harishchander 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
HARISHCHANDER SINGH,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 08-71114
Agency No. A079-262-980
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 29, 2010**
Before: ALARCÓN, LEAVY, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
Harishchander Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of
the Board of Immigration Appeal’s (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reissue a
previous decision. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Reviewing for
FILED
JUL 12 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

08-71114 2
abuse of discretion, Perez v. Mukasey, 516 F.3d 770, 773 (9th Cir. 2008), we deny
the petition for review.
The BIA did not act arbitrarily, irrationally, or contrary to law by concluding
that counsel’s affidavit of non-receipt was insufficient to rebut the presumption of
effective service. Cf. Singh v. Gonzales, 494 F.3d 1170, 1172 (9th Cir. 2007)
(statutory duty of service fulfilled when BIA mails decision to petitioner’s or his
counsel’s address of record); see Singh v. INS, 295 F.3d 1037, 1039 (9th Cir. 2002)
(The BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen shall be reversed only if it is “arbitrary,
irrational or contrary to law.”).
Singh’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --