Gurdev 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
GURDEV SINGH,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 07-71577
Agency No. A042-967-796
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 19, 2011**
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.
Gurdev Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board
of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing as untimely his appeal from an
immigration judge’s removal order. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C.
FILED
JAN 03 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

07-71577 2
§ 1252(a). We review de novo questions of law, Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d
785 (9th Cir. 2005), and we grant the petition for review.
The BIA dismissed Singh’s appeal as untimely without the benefit of our
decision in Irigoyen–Briones v. Holder, 644 F.3d 943, 948 (9th Cir. 2011), which
held that the 30-day filing deadline for BIA appeals is not jurisdictional. We
therefore remand for the BIA to determine whether to consider Singh’s appeal in
light on this intervening case law. See INS v. Ventura, 537 U.S. 12, 16 (2002).
PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED; REMANDED.

-- 2 of 2 --