Amarjeet 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).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
AMARJEET SINGH,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 10-73724
Agency No. A078-364-618
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted October 9, 2012**
Before: RAWLINSON, MURGUIA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
Amarjeet Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s decision denying his motion to reopen. We have jurisdiction
under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo constitutional claims, Vasquez-Zavala
FILED
OCT 17 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

10-73724 2
v. Ashcroft, 324 F.3d 1105, 1107 (9th Cir. 2003), and we deny the petition for
review.
Singh’s contention that the BIA violated his right to due process by failing
to provide him with a transcript of proceedings fails because he did not
demonstrate prejudice. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000)
(requiring prejudice for a petitioner to prevail on a due process claim).
Singh has waived any further challenge to the agency’s denial of his motion
to reopen based on ineffective assistance of counsel. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS,
94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir. 1996).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --