The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
08-71417•Gurinder Singh v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General
08-71417Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJan 24, 2011
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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
GURINDER SINGH,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 08-71417
Agency No. A075-248-076
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted January 10, 2011**
Before: BEEZER, TALLMAN, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Gurinder Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his second motion to
rescind his in absentia removal order. Our jurisdiction is governed by
8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to
FILED
JAN 24 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS
-- 1 of 2 --
08-71417 2
reopen, and review de novo questions of law. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d
785, 791-92 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for
review.
The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Singh’s motion as
number-barred, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(4)(ii), and Singh failed to demonstrate
that he acted with the due diligence required for equitable tolling, see Iturribarria
v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 897 (9th Cir. 2003) (equitable tolling available “when a
petitioner is prevented from filing because of deception, fraud, or error, as long as
the petitioner acts with due diligence”).
Singh’s contention that 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(4)(ii) is unconstitutional is
unavailing.
To the extent Singh challenges the immigration judge’s June 11, 1998,
decision, we lack jurisdiction because Singh did not appeal from that decision to
the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004).
Singh’s remaining contentions are unavailing.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
-- 2 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.