Case ID: f-appx_223/html/0573-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Nake SINGH, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
    Nos. 05-71645, 05-75414.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Feb. 20, 2007.
    
    Filed Feb. 27, 2007.
    Elias Z. Shamieh, Esq., Law Offices of Shamiyeh & Shamieh, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.
    Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Paul Fiorino, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: BEEZER, FERNANDEZ, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Nake Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his second motion to reopen deportation proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion, Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 894 (9th Cir.2003), and we deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Singh’s second motion to reopen as numerically barred under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2) (permitting only one motion to reopen deportation proceedings to be filed within ninety days of the administrative decision).

Singh’s reliance on Fajardo v. INS, 300 F.3d 1018 (9th Cir.2002) is misplaced because Fajardo holds that the single-motion limitation does not apply to in absentia orders of deportation, and Singh’s deportation order was not entered in absentia.

PETITIONS FOR REVIEW DENIED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.