Singh v. Holder

Ninth Circuit

Singh v. Holder

464 F. App'x 558

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedJanuary 3, 2011

DocketNo. 07-71577

StatusPublished

This text of 464 F. App'x 558 (Singh v. Holder) 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

Singh v. Holder, 464 F. App'x 558 (9th Cir. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

**

Gurdev Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing as untimely his appeal from an immigration judge’s removal order. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a). We review de novo questions of law, Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785 (9th Cir.2005), and we grant the petition for review.

The BIA dismissed Singh’s appeal as untimely without the benefit of our decision in Irigoyen—Briones v. Holder, 644 F.3d 943, 948 (9th Cir.2011), which held that the 30-day filing deadline for BIA appeals is not jurisdictional. We therefore remand for the BIA to determine whether to consider Singh’s appeal in light on this intervening case law. See INS v. Ventura, 537 U.S. 12, 16, 123 S.Ct. 353, 154 L.Ed.2d 272 (2002).

PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED; REMANDED.

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

**

Gurdev Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing as untimely his appeal from an immigration judge’s removal order. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a). We review de novo questions of law, Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785 (9th Cir.2005), and we grant the petition for review.

The BIA dismissed Singh’s appeal as untimely without the benefit of our decision in Irigoyen—Briones v. Holder, 644 F.3d 943, 948 (9th Cir.2011), which held that the 30-day filing deadline for BIA appeals is not jurisdictional. We therefore remand for the BIA to determine whether to consider Singh’s appeal in light on this intervening case law. See INS v. Ventura, 537 U.S. 12, 16, 123 S.Ct. 353, 154 L.Ed.2d 272 (2002).

PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED; REMANDED.

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)

464 F. App'x 558, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/singh-v-holder-ca9-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack