Narinderjit Singh v. Eric Holder, Jr. ( 2014 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT APR 23 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
NARINDERJIT SINGH, No. 10-71208 U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
Petitioner, Agency No. A073-419-674
v.
MEMORANDUM*
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
NARINDERJIT SINGH, No. 10-73415
Petitioner, Agency No. A073-419-674
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Page 2 of 3
Submitted April 9, 2014**
San Francisco, California
Before: KLEINFELD, NGUYEN, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
1. Our jurisdiction to review the denial of an INA § 212(i) waiver is limited
by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. See Corona-Mendez v. Holder, 593 F.3d 1143, 1146 (9th Cir.
2010). We have jurisdiction to review only questions of law and constitutional
claims. Id. Singh’s “factual errors” and adverse credibility arguments don’t fall
under either category, as they boil down to claims that the Immigration Judge (IJ)
abused its discretion. See Martinez-Rosas v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 926, 930 (9th Cir.
2005). We therefore lack jurisdiction to review these arguments.
We have jurisdiction to review Singh’s due process claim, but we reject it on
the merits. Singh’s children were not his qualifying relatives for the § 212(i)
waiver, so their feelings were not relevant to the hardship inquiry. See 8 U.S.C.
§ 1182(i). As the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) noted, Singh’s wife was a
qualifying relative, and he could have testified about the hardship she would suffer
based on their children’s reaction to his removal. Singh did not provide such
testimony. That Singh failed to do so doesn’t show that “the proceeding was so
fundamentally unfair that [he] was prevented from reasonably presenting his case.”
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Page 3 of 3
Colmenar v. INS, 210 F.3d 967, 971 (9th Cir. 2000) (internal quotation marks
omitted).
2. We have jurisdiction to review the BIA’s denial of Singh’s motion to
reopen. See Fernandez v. Gonzalez, 439 F.3d 592, 599–600 (9th Cir. 2006).
However, the BIA didn’t abuse its discretion in denying that motion. It properly
considered Singh’s newly submitted evidence and concluded that the evidence
didn’t materially alter Singh’s hardship showing. The BIA had previously
considered whether his wife’s anxiety and depression satisfied the extreme
hardship standard, and the BIA didn’t abuse its discretion in concluding the
additional evidence wasn’t material. Cf. Garcia v. Holder, 621 F.3d 906, 912–13
(9th Cir. 2010). The BIA was not required to explicitly reject each and every
document Singh presented. See Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir.
2010). It needed only to provide a decision sufficiently detailing its reasoning so
as to allow for adequate review, and it did so here. Id.PETITION DISMISSED IN PART; DENIED IN PART.