Mahinder 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
MAHINDER SINGH,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 09-71731
Agency No. A097-112-815
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted September 13, 2010**
Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Mahinder 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 decision denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings conducted in
absentia. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of
FILED
SEP 22 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

09-71731 2
discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, and de novo claims of due process
violations, including claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. Mohammed v.
Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny the petition for review.
The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Singh’s motion to reopen
where he did not establish that his failure to appear at his hearing was caused by
ineffective assistance of counsel, or another exceptional circumstance beyond his
control. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(4)(ii); see also Sharma v. INS, 89 F.3d 545,
548 (9th Cir. 1996); c.f. Monjaraz-Munoz v. INS, 327 F.3d 892, 897-98 (9th Cir.
2003).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --