Sukhdev Singh v. William Barr
This text of Sukhdev Singh v. William Barr (Sukhdev Singh v. William Barr) 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
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 22 2019 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SUKHDEV SINGH, No. 18-73051
Petitioner, Agency No. A205-542-579
v. MEMORANDUM* WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted October 15, 2019**
Before: FARRIS, LEAVY, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
Sukhdev Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration
judge’s decision denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings conducted in
absentia. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of
discretion the denial of a motion to reopen and review de novo questions of law.
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Bonilla v. Lynch, 840 F.3d 575, 581 (9th Cir. 2016). We deny the petition for
review.
The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Singh’s motion to reopen,
where he failed to provide sufficient detail to show that his infected tooth and the
resulting treatment amounted to an exceptional circumstance excusing his failure
to appear for his hearing. See Celis-Castellano v. Ashcroft, 298 F.3d 888, 890, 892
(9th Cir. 2002) (no abuse of discretion in finding no exceptional circumstances to
warrant reopening, where alien’s declaration and accompanying medical
documents did not provide sufficient detail of the severity of his illness).
Singh’s contention that the agency did not apply the correct standard in its
analysis is not supported.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2 18-73051
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Sukhdev Singh v. William Barr, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sukhdev-singh-v-william-barr-ca9-2019.