Natha Singh v. Eric Holder, Jr.

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 24 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
NATHA SINGH, No. 09-71567
Petitioner, Agency No. A075-304-443
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted March 8, 2011 **
Before: FARRIS, LEAVY, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Natha Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board
of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s
(“IJ”) order denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings conducted in
*
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).
absentia. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Reviewing for abuse of
discretion, Perez v. Mukasey, 516 F.3d 770, 773 (9th Cir. 2008), we deny the
petition for review.
The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Singh’s motion to reopen
because the Notice to Appear showed that it had been personally served on Singh
and contained notice of his next scheduled hearing, see Khan v. Ashcroft, 374 F.3d
825, 828 (9th Cir. 2004) (notice proper where INS adhered to statutorily imposed
procedural requirements), and because the motion was filed more than 10 years
after the IJ’s May 16, 1997, order and Singh failed to demonstrate grounds for
equitable tolling of the filing deadline, see Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 897
(9th Cir. 2003); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(4)(ii).
In light of our disposition, we need not consider Singh’s remaining
contentions.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2 09-71567