Sukhwinder Singh v. Merrick Garland ( 2022 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 20 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SUKHWINDER SINGH, No. 15-72004
Petitioner, Agency No. A088-548-940
v.
MEMORANDUM*
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 17, 2022**
Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
Sukhwinder Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen
proceedings.
Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. See Garcia v. Lynch, 798
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
F.3d 876, 880 (9th Cir. 2015). We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a
motion to reopen. Cano-Merida v. INS, 311 F.3d 960, 964 (9th Cir. 2002). We
dismiss the petition for review in part and deny in part.
We previously denied Singh’s petition for review of the agency’s decision
that he was not eligible for asylum, withholding of removal, or protection under the
Convention Against Torture. Singh v. Holder, 586 F. App’x 318 (9th Cir. 2014)
(unpublished). To the extent that Singh now seeks additional review of that
decision, we lack jurisdiction to consider his contentions. Stone v. INS, 514 U.S.
386, 405 (1995) (“[A] deportation order is final, and reviewable, when issued.”).
The BIA did not abuse its discretion by denying Singh’s motion to reopen.
First, as the BIA determined, Singh did not introduce new evidence that would
likely have changed the outcome of his case, and no exception to the filing
deadline for his motion to reopen otherwise applies. 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C); 8
C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3); Young Sun Shin v. Mukasey, 547 F.3d 1019, 1025 (9th Cir.
2008) (applicants who seek to “reopen proceedings to pursue relief bear a ‘heavy
burden’ of proving that, if proceedings were reopened, the new evidence would
likely change the result in the case” (quoting Matter of Coelho, 20 I. & N. Dec.
464, 473 (BIA 1992))). Second, the record does not support Singh’s contention
that the BIA failed to consider the evidence he submitted in support of his motion.
See Feng Gui Lin v. Holder, 588 F.3d 981, 987 (9th Cir. 2009) (“[A]lthough the
2 15-72004
BIA must consider a petitioner’s evidence of changed country conditions, it need
not expressly refute on the record every single piece of evidence.”).
The temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the
mandate.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
3 15-72004