SHISHA SINGH-BALWINDER KOUR, AKA Shisha Singh-Balwinder Kaur, AKA Sheesa Singh, AKA… v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SHISHA SINGH-BALWINDER KOUR,
AKA Shisha Singh-Balwinder Kaur, AKA
Sheesa Singh, AKA Sheesha Singh, AKA
Shisha Singh
Petitioner,
v.
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 15-70625
Agency No. A200-064-866
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 14, 2018**
San Francisco, California
Before: SILER***, PAEZ, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without
oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
*** The Honorable Eugene E. Siler, United States Circuit Judge for the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, sitting by designation.
FILED
JUN 22 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2
Shisha Singh-Balwinder Kour appeals the Board of Immigration Appeals’
(“BIA”) denial of his motion to reopen. For the following reasons, we deny the
petition.
As previously determined by this court, Kour “failed to provide sufficient
evidence corroborating his testimony as to his identity” during his removal
proceedings. Kour v. Holder, 514 F. App’x 690, 690 (9th Cir. 2013). The BIA
denied Kour’s subsequent motion to reopen based, in part, on his failure to
demonstrate that his submitted passport could not have been obtained and
produced during his prior hearing. The BIA grants motions to reopen only if
“evidence sought to be offered . . . was not available and could not have been
discovered or presented at the former hearing.” 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(1).
Because the BIA has significant discretion in determining whether to reopen
a matter, we employ the deferential abuse-of-discretion standard of review on
appeal, INS v. Doherty, 502 U.S. 314, 323 (1992), affirming the BIA’s decision
unless it is “arbitrary, irrational, or contrary to law,” Singh v. INS, 295 F.3d 1037,
1039 (9th Cir. 2002). Kour did not explain to the BIA why he could not have
presented his old passport during the previous proceedings, given that Kour’s new
passport indicated that his prior passport had been returned and cancelled.
Furthermore, Kour’s statements during his earlier removal hearing made clear that
he had not attempted to obtain a new passport. Consequently, the BIA’s

-- 2 of 3 --

3
determination that Kour failed to meet the requirements of a motion to reopen was
not arbitrary, irrational, or contrary to law. Additional evidence of Kour’s identity
was previously available, and he did not provide the BIA with a reasonable
explanation as to why this evidence was not provided as part of his original
removal proceedings. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(1).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --