Singh v. Garland

21-6612-ag
Singh v. Garland
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
SUMMARY ORDER
RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT.
CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS
PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE
PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A
SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY
MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE
(WITH THE NOTATION “SUMMARY ORDER”). A PARTY CITING A SUMMARY
ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY
COUNSEL.
1 At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second
2 Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley
3 Square, in the City of New York, on the 9th day of May, two thousand twenty-
4 three.
5
6 PRESENT: JOSÉ A. CABRANES,
7 GERARD E. LYNCH,
8 RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR.,
9 Circuit Judges.
10 ------------------------------------------------------------------
11 SUSAN SINGH,
12 Petitioner,
13
14 v. No. 21-6612-ag
15
16 MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED
17 STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL,
18 Respondent.
19 ------------------------------------------------------------------
20
21 FOR PETITIONER: Samuel Iroegbu, Albany, NY
1
2 FOR RESPONDENT: Matthew A. Spurlock, Trial Attorney,
3 John S. Hogan, Assistant Director,
4 Office of Immigration Litigation, for
5 Brian Boynton, Principal Deputy
6 Assistant Attorney General, Civil
7 Division, United States Department of
8 Justice, Washington, DC
9
10 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a Board of
11 Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND
12 DECREED that the petition for review is DISMISSED.
13 Petitioner Susan Singh, a native and citizen of Trinidad and Tobago, seeks
14 review of an October 22, 2021 decision of the BIA affirming a February 28, 2019
15 decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) ordering her removal. In re Susan Singh,
16 No. A074 844 936 (B.I.A. Oct. 22, 2021), aff’g No. A074 844 936 (Immig. Ct. Buffalo
17 Feb. 28, 2019). Singh argues that the IJ wrongfully denied her tenth motion for a
18 continuance and that the BIA erred when a single member of the BIA affirmed the
19 IJ’s decision without opinion. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the
20 underlying facts and procedural history, to which we refer only as necessary to
21 explain our decision to dismiss the petition.
22 Singh challenges the agency’s denial of her motion to continue proceedings
23 to await adjudication of the I-130 visa petition her husband filed on her behalf with
2
1 U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”). But while Singh’s petition
2 to us was pending, USCIS denied Singh’s I-130 petition as abandoned. “[U]nder
3 the mootness doctrine, if an event occurs while a case is pending on appeal that
4 makes it impossible for the court to grant any effectual relief whatever to a
5 prevailing party, we must dismiss the case, rather than issue an advisory opinion.”
6 Fuller v. Bd. of Immigr. Appeals, 702 F.3d 83, 86 (2d Cir. 2012) (quotation marks
7 omitted). Accordingly, Singh’s challenge to the denial of her motion for a
8 continuance is moot because “a remand would bring about no change in the case,
9 as the basis on which [Singh] originally sought the continuance no longer exists.”
10 Banse v. Holder, 440 F. App’x 39, 40 (2d Cir. 2011) (summary order) (citing Qureshi
11 v. Gonzales, 442 F.3d 985, 987–90 (7th Cir. 2006)); see also Church of Scientology
12 v. United States, 506 U.S. 9, 12 (1992) (“[I]f an event occurs while a case is pending
13 on appeal that makes it impossible for the court to grant ‘any effectual relief
14 whatever’ to a prevailing party, the appeal must be dismissed.” (quoting Mills v.
15 Green, 159 U.S. 651, 653 (1895))).
16 Singh also challenges the BIA’s decision to summarily affirm the IJ in a
17 decision by a single member. Even assuming we have jurisdiction to review the
18 BIA’s decision to resolve an appeal in that manner rather than referring it to a
3
1 three-member panel, see Kambolli v. Gonzales, 449 F.3d 454, 463 (2d Cir. 2006),
2 Singh’s challenge is without merit. “[S]ummary affirmance by the BIA is
3 permissible when the [IJ’s] decision below contains sufficient reasoning and
4 evidence to permit proper judicial review,” and here, the IJ’s decision to deny
5 Singh’s request for a continuance was sufficiently explained. Aslam v. Mukasey,
6 537 F.3d 110, 117 (2d Cir. 2008) (quotation marks omitted).
7 We have considered Singh’s remaining arguments and conclude that they
8 are without merit. For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
9 DISMISSED. All pending motions and applications are DENIED and stays
10 VACATED.
11 FOR THE COURT:
12 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk of Court
4