Singh v. Garland ( 2023 )

20-2818
Singh v. Garland
BIA
A201 109 127
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
SUMMARY ORDER
RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER
FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF
APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT=S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER
IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN
ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION “SUMMARY ORDER”). A PARTY CITING A SUMMARY ORDER
MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.
1 At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals
2 for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall
3 United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of
4 New York, on the 9th day of January, two thousand twenty-
5 three.
6
7 PRESENT:
8 DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON,
9 Chief Judge,
10 JOHN M. WALKER, JR.,
11 ALISON J. NATHAN,
12 Circuit Judges.
13 _____________________________________
14
15 MANDEEP SINGH,
16 Petitioner,
17
18 v. 20-2818
19 NAC
20 MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED
21 STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL,
22 Respondent.
23 _____________________________________
24
25 FOR PETITIONER: Dalbir Singh, Dalbir Singh &
26 Associates, New York, NY.
27
28 FOR RESPONDENT: Brian Boynton, Acting Assistant
29 Attorney General; Song Park,
1 Senior Litigation Counsel; Scott
2 M. Marconda, Trial Attorney,
3 Office of Immigration Litigation,
4 United States Department of
5 Justice, Washington, DC.
6
7 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a
8 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby
9 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review
10 is DISMISSED.
11 Petitioner Mandeep Singh, a native and citizen of India,
12 seeks review of a July 30, 2020, BIA decision denying his
13 motion to reopen. In re Mandeep Singh, No. A 201-109-127
14 (B.I.A. July 30, 2020). We assume the parties’ familiarity
15 with the underlying facts and procedural history.
16 We lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s “entirely
17 discretionary” decision declining to reopen proceedings sua
18 sponte. Ali v. Gonzales, 448 F.3d 515, 518 (2d Cir. 2006);
19 see also Chen v. Garland, 43 F.4th 244, 252–53 (2d Cir. 2022).
20 Although we may remand if the agency “declined to exercise
21 its sua sponte authority because it misperceived the legal
22 background and thought, incorrectly, that a reopening would
23 necessarily fail,” Mahmood v. Holder, 570 F.3d 466, 469 (2d
24 Cir. 2009), Singh has not demonstrated that the agency
2
1 misperceived the law. Contrary to Singh’s contention, it is
2 not the agency’s policy to reopen sua sponte when noncitizens
3 with outstanding removal orders become eligible to adjust to
4 lawful status. See Matter of Yauri, 25 I. & N. Dec. 103, 105
5 (B.I.A. 2009) (“We emphasize that untimely motions to reopen
6 to pursue an application for adjustment of status . . . will
7 ordinarily be denied.”); see also In re J-J-, 21 I. & N. Dec.
8 976, 984 (B.I.A. 1997) (“The power to reopen on our own motion
9 is not meant to be used as a general cure for filing defects
10 or to otherwise circumvent the regulations, where enforcing
11 them might result in hardship.”).
12 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
13 DISMISSED. All pending motions and applications are DENIED
14 and stays VACATED.
15 FOR THE COURT:
16 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe,
17 Clerk of Court
3