Singh v. Attorney General of the United States ( 2005 )

Opinions of the United
2005 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
10-13-2005
Singh v. Atty Gen USA
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 03-2814
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2005
Recommended Citation
"Singh v. Atty Gen USA" (2005). 2005 Decisions. Paper 424.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2005/424
This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2005 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.
NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
NO. 03-2814
________________
PARMJEET SINGH,
Petitioner
v.
ATTORNEY GENERAL
OF THE UNITED STATES,
Respondent
____________________________________
On Review of a Decision of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
(Agency No. A78-203-366)
______________________________________
Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
April 6, 2004
Before: ALITO, MCKEE AND COWEN, CIRCUIT JUDGES
(Filed October 13, 2005)
_______________________
OPINION
_______________________
PER CURIAM
Parmjeet Singh, a native and citizen of India, entered the United States in 1999.
The following year he sought asylum. The INS subsequently issued a notice to appear,
charging Singh with being removable from the United States for having entered in
violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)A)(i). After a hearing the Immigration Judge concluded
that Singh “has lied to the court and has fabricated a story based on actual injuries he
suffered but that have nothing to do with his alleged political activities.” The IJ found
that Singh’s oral testimony was contradicted not only by his own written testimony but
also by the affidavits of witnesses he introduced on his own behalf. Accordingly, the IJ
deemed Singh ineligible for relief and ordered him removed as charged.
The Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed without an opinion on February 28,
2003. On March 31, 2003, Singh filed a motion to reopen or for reconsideration, which
the BIA denied on June 3, 2003. The BIA declined to reopen the case because the new
evidence cited – news articles describing violence in India – did not address the IJ’s
adverse credibility finding. The BIA declined to reconsider its previous decision because
Singh had raised no error. Singh filed a petition for review on June 24, 2003.
I
Although we have jurisdiction to review the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen,
see, e.g., Ezeagwuna v. Ashcroft, 325 F.3d 396, 405, 410 (3d Cir. 2003), the scope of our
review here is limited. A motion for reconsideration or to reopen neither affects the
2
finality of a removal order nor extends the deadline for filing a petition for review of the
underlying removal order. Stone v. INS, 514 U.S. 386, 405 (1995); Nocon v. INS, 789
F.2d 1028, 1032-34 (3d Cir. 1986). Because Singh’s petition for review was filed after
the time had run to seek review of the BIA’s final removal order,1 we may examine the
propriety of the BIA’s refusal to reopen Singh’s case only and may not address Singh’s
arguments that the IJ erred in denying his asylum application. Nocon, 789 F.2d at 1032-
1033.
II
Under the regulations, the BIA “has discretion to deny a motion to reopen even if
the party moving has made out a prima facie case for relief.” 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a). As
the Supreme Court has stated, the regulations “plainly disfavor” such motions. INS v.
Abudu, 485 U.S. 94, 110 (1988). Accordingly, we review the BIA’s denial of a motion to
reopen for abuse of discretion with “broad deference” to its decision. Ezeagwuna v.
Ashcroft, 325 F.3d 396, 409 (3d Cir. 2003). Thus, in order to succeed on the petition for
review, Singh must show that the BIA’s decision was arbitrary, irrational, or contrary to
law. See Tipu v. INS, 20 F.3d 580, 582 (3d Cir. 1994).
In his brief, however, Singh merely argues that he should have been granted
asylum. He does not address the BIA’s denial of his motion to reopen, let alone explain
why the order was arbitrary, irrational or contrary to law. Accordingly, the issue is
1
Thirty days. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1).
3
waived. Kost v. Kozakiewicz, 1 F.3d 176, 182 (3d Cir.1993). Even if it were not, we
perceive no such flaws in the BIA’s decision. Accordingly, we shall deny Singh’s
petition for review. The appellee’s motion to dismiss or for summary action is denied.