Nardev Singh v. Loretta Lynch

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: A076-482-623. Copies to all parties and the agency. [999786726]. [15-1934]

Appeal: 15-1934

Doc: 33

Filed: 04/01/2016

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-1934

NARDEV SINGH,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.

Submitted:

March 29, 2016

Decided:

April 1, 2016

Before WILKINSON, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

William H. Berger, BERGER AND BERGER, Buffalo, New York, for
Petitioner.
Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal Deputy Assistant
Attorney General, Mary Jane Candaux, Assistant Director, Jeremy
M. Bylund, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-1934

Doc: 33

Filed: 04/01/2016

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Nardev 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

judge’s

decision

finding him removable pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(1)(G)(ii)
(2012).

We have thoroughly reviewed the record and conclude

that the agency properly determined that Singh is removable from
the United States as an alien who failed or refused to fulfill
the marital agreement that was made for the purpose of procuring
his admission as an immigrant.

See § 1227(a)(1)(G)(ii).

We

further conclude that substantial evidence supports the adverse
credibility finding, see Tewabe v. Gonzales, 446 F.3d 533, 538
(4th Cir. 2006), and that Singh cannot demonstrate a violation
of his due process rights as he fails to show the requisite
prejudice.

See Anim v. Mukasey, 535 F.3d 243, 256 (4th Cir.

2008).
Accordingly,

we

deny

reasons stated by the Board.
2015).
legal
before

the

petition

for

review

for

the

See In re: Singh (B.I.A. July 22,

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
contentions
this

court

are

adequately

and

argument

presented

would

not

in
aid

the
the

materials
decisional

process.
PETITION DENIED

2