Gopao Gopal Singh v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
GOPAO GOPAL SINGH,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 10-73024
Agency No. A095-784-626
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 18, 2013**
Before: TALLMAN, M. SMITH, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Gopao Gopal Singh, a native and citizen of Nepal, petitions for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of
removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We dismiss
FILED
JUN 20 2013
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 --

Singh’s petition for review.
A petition for review “must be filed not later than 30 days after the date of
the final order of removal.” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1). The 30-day filing period for a
petition for review is mandatory and jurisdictional. See Stone v. INS, 514 U.S. 386,
405 (1995); Magtanong v. Gonzales, 494 F.3d 1190, 1191 (9th Cir. 2007) (order)
(per curiam). “A mandatory and jurisdictional rule cannot be forfeited or waived,
and courts lack the authority to create equitable exceptions to such a rule.”
Magtanong, 494 F.3d at 1191 (internal citation omitted).
Even with the benefit of the mailbox rule, Singh has not shown he filed his
petition for review within the mandatory prescribed time, because Singh did not
direct that the petition for review be filed with the court when he first gave it to
prison officials for mailing. See Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 273 (1988)
(“delivery of a notice of appeal to prison authorities would not under any theory
constitute a ‘filing’ unless the notice were delivered for forwarding to the . . .
court.”). Thus, we dismiss Singh’s petition for review and deny all pending
motions as moot. See Magtanong , 494 F.3d at 1191-92.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.
10-73024 2

-- 2 of 2 --