Iqbal 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).
The Honorable Ronald M. Whyte, Senior United States District Judge***
for the Northern District of California, sitting by designation.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
IQBAL SINGH,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 09-72231
Agency No. A043-151-008
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted August 2, 2010**
Pasadena, California
Before: KOZINSKI, Chief Judge, REINHARDT, Circuit Judge and
WHYTE, District Judge.***
FILED
AUG 12 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

page 2
The BIA did not err in finding Singh removable because his robbery
conviction under California Penal Code § 212.5(c) is a categorical crime of
violence under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(F). See Nieves-Medrano v. Holder, 590
F.3d 1057, 1057–58 (9th Cir. 2010).
Singh’s removal to India moots his claim that he is entitled to protection
from removal under the Convention Against Torture. See Hose v. INS, 180 F.3d
992, 996 (9th Cir. 1999) (en banc).
Even assuming that Singh’s due process rights were violated when
immigration officials failed to transport him to his state post-conviction relief
hearing, he has failed to show that the violation “potentially . . . affect[ed] the
outcome of the proceedings.” Reyes-Melendez v. INS, 342 F.3d 1001, 1007 (9th
Cir. 2003) (alteration and omission in original) (internal quotation marks omitted).
PETITION DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --