Nirmal Singh v. Eric H. Holder Jr.

Ninth Circuit

Nirmal Singh v. Eric H. Holder Jr.

400 F. App'x 140

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedSeptember 29, 2010

Docket08-71185

StatusUnpublished

This text of 400 F. App'x 140 (Nirmal Singh v. Eric H. Holder Jr.) 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.

Bluebook

Nirmal Singh v. Eric H. Holder Jr., 400 F. App'x 140 (9th Cir. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Nirmal 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 order denying his motion to reopen deportation proceedings conducted in ab-sentia. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 *141 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 894 (9th Cir.2003), and de novo due process claims, Torres-Aguilar v. INS, 246 F.3d 1267, 1271 (9th Cir.2001). 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 concedes that he was personally served with the order to show cause and a hearing notice. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252b(a)(l)-(2) (repealed 1996) (written notice “shall be given in person to the alien (or, if personal service is not practicable, such notice shall be given by certified mail to the alien or to the alien’s counsel of record, if any)”); cf. Dobrota v. INS, 311 F.3d 1206, 1212-13 (9th Cir.2002) (due process violated where petitioner did not receive order to show cause or hearing notice and those documents were not served on his counsel). Singh’s due process claim therefore fails. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir.2000) (requiring error to prevail on due process claim). Because Singh received actual notice of his hearing, we reject his argument concerning 5 U.S.C. § 500(f).

We lack jurisdiction to review Singh’s contention that the asylum officer who personally served Singh with the order to show cause violated 8 C.F.R. § 242.1(c) because he failed to exhaust this contention before the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir.2004).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

**

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

MEMORANDUM **

Nirmal 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 order denying his motion to reopen deportation proceedings conducted in ab-sentia. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 *141 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 894 (9th Cir.2003), and de novo due process claims, Torres-Aguilar v. INS, 246 F.3d 1267, 1271 (9th Cir.2001). 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 concedes that he was personally served with the order to show cause and a hearing notice. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252b(a)(l)-(2) (repealed 1996) (written notice “shall be given in person to the alien (or, if personal service is not practicable, such notice shall be given by certified mail to the alien or to the alien’s counsel of record, if any)”); cf. Dobrota v. INS, 311 F.3d 1206, 1212-13 (9th Cir.2002) (due process violated where petitioner did not receive order to show cause or hearing notice and those documents were not served on his counsel). Singh’s due process claim therefore fails. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir.2000) (requiring error to prevail on due process claim). Because Singh received actual notice of his hearing, we reject his argument concerning 5 U.S.C. § 500(f).

We lack jurisdiction to review Singh’s contention that the asylum officer who personally served Singh with the order to show cause violated 8 C.F.R. § 242.1(c) because he failed to exhaust this contention before the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir.2004).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

400 F. App'x 140, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nirmal-singh-v-eric-h-holder-jr-ca9-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack