NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ____________ No. 19-3416 ____________ ARVINDER SINGH, Petitioner v. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Agency No. A070-906-120) Immigration Judge: Alberto J. Riekkohl Submitted under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) On June 18, 2020 Before: JORDAN, MATEY and ROTH, Circuit Judges (Opinion filed: December 29, 2020) O P I N I O N* * This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent. ROTH, Circuit Judge: Nearly nine years after the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) terminated his case, Arvinder Singh moved to reopen it for the second time. For reasons that follow, we will deny Singh’s petition for review. I.1 Singh, a native of India, entered the United States in February 1993. After his application for asylum and withholding of removal was denied, the former Immigration and Naturalization Service placed him in removal proceedings pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(1)(B) as an alien present in the United States without having been inspected. Singh appeared at his deportation hearing in April 1995. At the conclusion of that hearing, the Immigration Judge (IJ) issued a decision denying Singh’s application for relief and ordering his removal to India. Singh’s appeal to the BIA was summarily dismissed in January 2001 after he failed to submit a written statement or brief. Instead of petitioning this Court for review, Singh moved to reopen his case with the BIA in December 2008. The BIA denied this untimely motion in April 2009 and denied Singh’s motion to reconsider its denial in November 2009. Finally, in August 2018, Singh filed the instant motion to reopen. The BIA denied it in September 2019. He petitioned for review. II.2 1 Because we write primarily for the parties, we only discuss the facts and proceedings to the extent necessary. 2 The BIA had jurisdiction over Singh’s case under 8 C.F.R. §§ 1003.1(b), 1003.38, and 2 A. “We review the denial of a motion to reopen for abuse of discretion and may reverse only if the denial is arbitrary, irrational, or contrary to law.”3 In general, “an alien may file only one motion to reopen . . . and that motion must be filed no later than 90 days after the date on which the final administrative decision was rendered in the proceeding sought to be reopened.”4 Singh does not dispute that his second motion to reopen, filed nearly nine years after the BIA had denied his motion to reconsider, would have been barred but argues that it is exempt from the bar on successive or untimely motions to reopen because of 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii). Section 1003.2(c)(3)(ii) provides an exception when an alien moving to reopen is applying or reapplying for asylum or withholding of removal “based on changed circumstances arising in the country of nationality or in the country to which deportation has been ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals