Garmit Singh, aka Bhupinder Singh; KAUMALDER KAUR, aka Kulwinder Kaur; 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).
LA/Research
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
GARMIT SINGH, aka Bhupinder Singh;
KAUMALDER KAUR, aka Kulwinder
Kaur; et al.
Petitioners,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 06-71587
Agency Nos. A070-842-329
A074-762-397
A074-762-398
MEMORANDUM *
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 15, 2009**
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
Garmit Singh, Kaumalder Kaur and their son, natives and citizens of India,
petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) denial of their
FILED
DEC 22 2009
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

LA/Research 06-71587 2
motion to reopen proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252.
Reviewing for abuse of discretion, Azanor v. Ashcroft, 364 F.3d 1013, 1018 (9th
Cir. 2004), we deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Singh’s motion to reopen
based on ineffective assistance of counsel because the motion did not substantially
comply with the procedural requirements set forth in Matter of Lozada, 19 I. & N.
Dec. 637 (BIA 1988), and the facts underlying Singh’s claim are not plain on the
face of the record. See Azanor, 364 F.3d at 1023.
It follows that the BIA did not violate due process by denying Singh’s
motion. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error for a
due process violation).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --