Sukhbir Singh v. Eric Holder, Jr.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
SUKHBIR SINGH, Petitioner, v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General, Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals.
December 2, 2009
December 30, 2009
Before WILKINSON, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Nicholas J. Mundy, NICHOLAS J. MUNDY, PLLC, Brooklyn, New York, for Petitioner. Tony West, Assistant Attorney General, Daniel E. Goldman, Senior Litigation Counsel, Andrew B. Insenga, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM: Sukhbir Singh, a native and citizen of India,
petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals ("Board") dismissing his appeal from the immigration We deny the
judge's order denying his second motion to reopen. petition for review.
We review the denial of a motion to reopen for abuse of discretion. INS v. Doherty, 502 U.S. 314, 323 (1992); Motions
Stewart v. U.S. INS, 181 F.3d 587, 595 (4th Cir. 1999).
to reopen "are disfavored . . . [because] every delay works to the advantage of the deportable alien who wishes merely to The is v.
remain in the United States." court will reverse the or
Doherty, 502 U.S. at 323. decision to only if it
Ashcroft, 290 F.3d 166, 174 (3d Cir. 2002). By regulation, a motion to reopen "must be filed no later than 90 days" after the date on which the administrative decision (2009). at issue becomes final. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2)
The ninety day time limit does not apply (1) if the
alien is claiming "changed country conditions arising in the country of nationality or the country to which removal has been ordered, if such evidence is material and was not available and would not have been discovered or presented at the previous
8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii) (2006), or (2) if 2
absentia and files the motion within 180 days of the entry of the order of removal or if the alien failed to receive notice of the hearing or did not appear through no fault of the alien because the alien was in federal or state custody. § 1003.23(b)(4)(ii) (2009). Insofar as Singh believes he did not receive proper notice of the hearing, that issue is abandoned because he does not raise the issue in his opening brief. See Yousefi v. INS, See 8 C.F.R.
260 F.3d 318, 326 (4th Cir. 2001); Edwards v. City of Goldsboro, 178 F.3d 231, 241 n.6 (4th Cir. 1999). Board did not abuse its discretion in We further find the dismissing the appeal
because Singh failed to show he was entitled to any of the relief he was seeking. Accordingly, dispense with oral we deny the petition the for facts review. and We legal
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?