Lakhwir Singh v. Eric Holder, Jr. , 586 F. App'x 273 ( 2014 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION NOV 24 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
LAKHWIR SINGH, AKA Gurjit Singh, No. 11-70574
Petitioner, Agency No. A071-572-944
v.
MEMORANDUM*
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 20, 2014**
Pasadena, California
Before: TASHIMA, W. FLETCHER, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Petitioner Lakhwir Singh challenges the BIA’s decisions to reopen his
proceedings and terminate his grant of asylum, and to deny his motion to remand
to the IJ so that he could seek adjustment of status. We review the BIA’s decisions
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
on motions to reopen and remand for abuse of discretion. Hernandez-Velasquez v.
Holder, 611 F.3d 1073, 1077 (9th Cir. 2010). We dismiss the petition.
Petitioner argues that the BIA abused its discretion when it granted the
government’s motion to reopen his proceedings and terminate his grant of asylum.
Because Petitioner did not oppose the government’s motion to reopen during BIA
proceedings, this court lacks jurisdiction over this unexhausted argument. Arsdi v.
Holder, 659 F.3d 925, 930 (9th Cir. 2011).
Petitioner also contends that the BIA abused its discretion when it denied his
motion to remand to the IJ so that he could seek to adjust his status. This issue is
moot. Congress entrusted the power to adjust an arriving alien’s status to USCIS.
8 C.F.R. § 1245.2(a)(1)(ii); Mamigonian v. Biggs, 710 F.3d 936, 945 (9th Cir.
2013). After the BIA denied his motion to remand, Petitioner applied to USCIS
for adjustment of status, and USCIS denied his application. Because this court can
no longer fashion meaningful relief, see Aguilar-Navarette v. Holder, 460 F. App’x
698, 698–99 (9th Cir. 2011), this petition for review is now moot.
PETITION DISMISSED.
-2-