NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JAN 15 2021 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT SINDER SINGH, No. 19-72768 Petitioner, Agency No. A201-741-930 v. MEMORANDUM* JEFFREY A. ROSEN, Acting Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted January 12, 2021** Pasadena, California Before: WATFORD, FRIEDLAND, and BENNETT, Circuit Judges. Sinder Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of an affirmance by an immigration judge (“IJ”) of an asylum officer’s negative credible fear determination, see 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(1), and of the IJ’s subsequent denial of Singh’s motion to reopen his credible fear proceedings. Singh argues that the IJ * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). applied the wrong legal standard and violated his due process rights. We dismiss the petition for lack of jurisdiction. See id. §§ 1252(a)(2)(A), (e). On June 28, 2019, Singh crossed the U.S.-Mexico border without inspection and was apprehended by Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officials. Singh said he feared returning to India. CBP placed him in expedited removal proceedings pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(1). An asylum officer conducted a credible fear interview in which Singh, with the assistance of counsel, explained that he feared persecution on account of his Sikh religion. The asylum officer found Singh credible, but determined that there was not a significant possibility that he could establish past or future persecution in a full hearing. See id. § 1225(b)(1)(B)(v). Singh requested review of the asylum officer’s determination. On September 27, 2019, Singh appeared pro se before an IJ via videoconference. The IJ informed Singh that he had a right to consult an attorney at his expense, but that the attorney could not participate in the hearing. See id. § 1225(b)(1)(B)(iv). Singh said he did not have an attorney that day and that he agreed to proceed with his case. The IJ affirmed the asylum officer’s negative credible fear determination and issued a final order of removal on September 27, 2019. Singh filed a motion to reopen on October 24, 2019, and a petition for 2 review with this court on November 1, 2019.1 Under 8 U.S.C. §§ 1252(a)(2)(A) and 1252(e), we may not review a direct challenge to an expedited removal order issued pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(1). Pena v. Lynch, 815 F.3d 452, 455 (9th Cir. 2016). The jurisdictional provisions in §§ 1252(a)(2)(A) and 1252(e) also prohibit our review of an IJ’s denial of a motion to reopen a credible fear determination. Singh v. Barr, 982 F.3d 778, 781 (9th Cir. 2020). Habeas review is available for noncitizens to challenge expedited removal orders on three very limited bases, see 8 U.S.C. § 1252(e)(2), but Singh has not asserted claims raising any of those grounds.2 We ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals