Singh v. Holder , 359 F. App'x 374 ( 2009 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-1140
SUKHBIR SINGH,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.
Submitted: December 2, 2009 Decided: 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Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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
judge’s order denying his second motion to reopen. We deny the
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);
Stewart v. U.S. INS, 181 F.3d 587, 595 (4th Cir. 1999). Motions
to reopen “are disfavored . . . [because] every delay works to
the advantage of the deportable alien who wishes merely to
remain in the United States.” Doherty, 502 U.S. at 323. The
court will reverse the Board’s decision only if it is
“arbitrary, irrational, or contrary to law.” Sevoian v.
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 at issue becomes final. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2)
(2009). 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
proceeding,” 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii) (2006), or (2) if
2
the alien is seeking to reopen a removal order entered in
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. See 8 C.F.R.
§ 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,
260 F.3d 318, 326 (4th Cir. 2001); Edwards v. City of Goldsboro,
178 F.3d 231, 241 n.6 (4th Cir. 1999). We further find the
Board did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the appeal
because Singh failed to show he was entitled to any of the
relief he was seeking.
Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED
3