Sardar 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 finds this case suitable for decision without**
oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
KY/Research
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SARDAR GURDEV SINGH,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
Nos. 06-74549
07-72854
Agency No. A072-012-911
MEMORANDUM *
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 17, 2009**
Before: ALARCÓN, TROTT, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
In these consolidated petitions for review, Sardar Gurdev Singh, a native and
citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”)
orders denying his motion to reissue and his motions to reopen based on ineffective
FILED
DEC 14 2009
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

KY/Research 06-74549 2
assistance of counsel. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for
abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, Reyes v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d
592, 595 (9th Cir. 2004), and review de novo claims of due process violations,
Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny the
petitions for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying both of Singh’s motions to
reopen claiming ineffective assistance of counsel because Singh failed to show
prejudice. See Rojas-Garcia v. Ashcroft, 339 F.3d 814, 826 (9th Cir. 2003)
(explaining that to demonstrate prejudice, a petitioner must establish plausible
grounds for relief).
It follows that Singh cannot show a due process violation. See Lata v. INS,
204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error to prevail on a due process
claim).
Singh’s remaining contentions are unavailing.
PETITIONS FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --