Sandeep Randhawa Singh v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SANDEEP RANDHAWA SINGH,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 12-73130
Agency No. A047-655-976
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 19, 2013**
Before: CANBY, TROTT, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
Sandeep Randhawa Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review
of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen
removal proceedings. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review
for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen. Mohammed v. Gonzales,
FILED
DEC 12 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* 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).

-- 1 of 3 --

400 F.3d 785, 791 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition
for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Singh’s untimely motion to
reopen to apply for special rule cancellation of removal for battered spouses where
Singh filed his motion six years after his final order of removal, and he failed to
demonstrate that the one-year filing deadline should be waived due to
extraordinary circumstances. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(iv)(III). Singh’s
contention that the BIA did not address the evidence regarding his extraordinary
circumstances claim is belied by the record.
In his opening brief, Singh fails to raise, and therefore has waived, any
challenge to the BIA’s determination that his motion to reopen to apply for a
hardship waiver under 8 U.S.C. § 1186a(c)(4)(A) was untimely. See Rizk v.
Holder, 629 F.3d 1083, 1091 n.3 (9th Cir. 2011) (issues not raised in a petitioner’s
opening brief are deemed waived). Accordingly, we need not reach Singh’s
arguments regarding the BIA’s failure to consider evidence with respect to the
hardship waiver.
We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s discretionary decision to not reopen
removal proceedings sua sponte. See Mejia-Hernandez v. Holder, 633 F.3d 818,
12-73130 2

-- 2 of 3 --

823-24 (9th Cir. 2011).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
12-73130 3

-- 3 of 3 --