Aujla v. Mukasey
This text of 301 F. App'x 693 (Aujla v. Mukasey) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
MEMORANDUM
Amarjit Singh Aujla, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings to seek adjustment of status. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen, Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 894 (9th Cir.2003), and we deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Singh Aujla’s motion to reopen as untimely because the motion was filed more than two years after the BIA’s final order. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(e)(2) (motion to reopen must generally be filed within 90 days of the final administrative order).
We need not reach Singh Aujla’s remaining contention because the BIA’s timeliness finding is dispositive.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
301 F. App'x 693, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/aujla-v-mukasey-ca9-2008.