Jarnail 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).
/Research
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JARNAIL SINGH,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 07-72956
Agency No. A029-462-617
MEMORANDUM *
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 15, 2009**
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Jarnail Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board
of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s
(“IJ”) decision denying his motion to reopen deportation proceedings conducted in
FILED
DEC 28 2009
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

/Research 07-72956 2
absentia. Reviewing for abuse of discretion, Urbina-Osejo v. INS, 124 F.3d 1314,
1316 (9th Cir. 1997), we deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Singh’s motion to reopen
because Singh failed to demonstrate “reasonable cause” for failing to appear at the
October 11, 1990, hearing. See id.
We lack jurisdiction to review Singh’s contentions regarding the legal
sufficiency of the notice of hearing and the obligation to advise the immigration
court of any change of address, because Singh failed to raise those issues before
the agency. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004).
In light of our disposition, Singh’s request for fees is denied.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

-- 2 of 2 --