Case ID: f-appx_360/html/0739-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Garmit SINGH, aka Bhupinder Singh; Kaumalder Kaur, aka Kulwinder Kaur; et al., Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 06-71587.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Dec. 15, 2009.
    
    Filed Dec. 22, 2009.
    Hardeep Singh Rai, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioners.
    Ronald E. LeFevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, OIL, Norah Ascoli Schwarz, Senior Litigation Counsel, Elizabeth J. Stevens, Assistant Director, John Clifford Cunningham, I, Esquire, Senior Litigation Counsel, DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Offlce of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Garmit Singh, Kaumalder Kaur and their son, natives and citizens of India, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) denial of their motion to reopen proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Reviewing for abuse of discretion, Azanor v. Ashcroft, 364 F.3d 1013, 1018 (9th Cir.2004), we deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Singh’s motion to reopen based on ineffective assistance of counsel because the motion did not substantially comply with the procedural requirements set forth in Matter of Lozada, 19 I. & N. Dec. 637 (BIA 1988), and the facts underlying Singh’s claim are not plain on the face of the record. See Azanor, 364 F.3d at 1023.

It follows that the BIA did not violate due process by denying Singh’s motion. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir.2000) (requiring error for a due process violation).

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