Case ID: f-appx_96/html/0543-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Narinder SINGH, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 03-70793.
    Agency No. [ AXX-XXX-XXX ].
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted May 10, 2004.
    
    Decided May 17, 2004.
    Anju Multani, Downey, CA, for Petitioner.
    Regional Counsel, Western Region, Immigration & Naturalization Service, Laguna Niguel, CA, CAC-District Counsel, Esq., Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Legal Officer, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Richard M. Evans, Esq., Alison Marie Igoe, Paul Fiorino, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before CANBY, KOZINSKI, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Narinder 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 to seek relief under the Convention Against Torture. We apply the transitional rules under the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, and we have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1105a(a). See Rodriguez-Lariz v. INS, 282 F.3d 1218, 1222-23 (9th Cir.2002). We review the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen for abuse of discretion, Cano-Merida v. INS, 311 F.3d 960, 964 (9th Cir. 2002), and we deny the petition in part, and dismiss it in part.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion by denying Singh’s motion to reopen because he failed to make a prima facie showing that it was more likely than not that he would be tortured if deported to India. See 8 C.F.R. §§ 208.16(c)(2)(4), 208.18(b)(2); Cano-Merida, 811 F.3d at 965-66.

We lack jurisdiction to consider Singh’s challenge to the BIA’s initial decision denying his asylum application because he did not timely appeal that decision to this Court. See Marbinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1258 (9th Cir.1996).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part, DISMISSED in part. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication arid may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.