Singh v. Holder

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUN 09 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SUKHINDER SINGH, a.k.a. Sukhjinder No. 06-71016
Singh-Toor,
Agency No. A073-413-757
Petitioner,
v. MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 25, 2010 **
Before: CANBY, THOMAS, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Sukhinder Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of an
order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) denying his motion to reopen
deportation proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review
*
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).
06-71016
for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, Ordonez v. INS, 345 F.3d
777, 782 (9th Cir. 2003), and de novo claims of constitutional violations in
immigration proceedings, Ram v. INS, 243 F.3d 510, 516 (9th Cir. 2001). We deny
the petition for review.
Contrary to Singh’s contention, the BIA applied the appropriate standard of
review and thus did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to reopen. See
Singh v. INS, 295 F.3d 1037, 1039 (9th Cir. 2002) (BIA’s denial of a motion to
reopen shall be reversed if it is “arbitrary, irrational, or contrary to law”).
Singh’s due process claim regarding simultaneous translation fails because
the proceedings were not “so fundamentally unfair that [he] was prevented from
reasonably presenting his case.” Colmenar v. INS, 210 F.3d 967, 971 (9th Cir.
2000) (citation omitted). Moreover, Singh failed to demonstrate that simultaneous
translation of the entire hearing may have affected the outcome of the proceedings.
See id. (requiring prejudice to prevail on a due process challenge).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2 0 6 -7 1 0 1 6