Ranjit Singh v. Eric Holder, Jr. , 540 F. App'x 725 ( 2013 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION OCT 01 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RANJIT SINGH, No. 11-72357
Petitioner, Agency No. A073-399-833
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted September 24, 2013 **
Before: RAWLINSON, N.R. SMITH, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Ranjit Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board
of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his second motion to reopen
removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for
*
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).
abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, see Avagyan v. Holder, 646
F.3d 672, 674 (9th Cir. 2011), and we deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Singh’s motion as untimely
and number-barred, where the successive motion was filed more than eleven years
after his removal order became final, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Singh failed
to show the due diligence required for equitable tolling of the filing deadline, see
Avagyan, 646 F.3d at 678-80 (equitable tolling is available to a petitioner who
establishes that he suffered from deception, fraud or error, and exercised due
diligence in discovering such circumstances).
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Singh’s request to remand to
adjudicate his adjustment of status application since his eligibility for a new form
of relief did not excuse him from the timeliness requirements. See 8 C.F.R.
§ 1003.2(c)(3); see also Ocampo v. Holder, 629 F.3d 923, 928 (9th Cir. 2010);
Alali-Amin v. Mukasey, 523 F.3d 1039, 1041-42 (9th Cir. 2008).
In light of this disposition, we do not reach Singh’s other contentions,
including whether Singh received adequate notice of the consequences of his
failure to depart.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2 11-72357