Case ID: f-appx_89/html/0134-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Jagbir SINGH, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.
    Nos. 02-71690, 02-73952.
    Agency No. [ AXX-XXX-XXX ].
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Feb. 13, 2004.
    
    Decided March 4, 2004.
    Martin Resendez Guajardo, Law Office of Martin Resendez Guajardo, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.
    Regional Counsel, Western Region, Immigration & Naturalization Service, Laguna Niguel, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Legal Officer, Office of the District Counsel, San Francisco, CA, David J. Kline, Huge G. Mullane, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    
      Before SCHROEDER, Chief Judge, TALLMAN, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The court sua sponte changes the docket to reflect that John Ashcoft, the Attorney General, is the proper respondent. The Clerk shall amend the docket to reflect the above caption.
    
    
      
       This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Jagbir Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (the “BIA”) order dismissing his motion to reopen. Singh similarly petitions for review of the BIA’s order dismissing his motion for reconsideration. This court consolidated Singh’s petitions.

We now dismiss Singh’s petitions for two reasons. First, we lack jurisdiction to review Singh’s contention that the BIA should have exercised its sua sponte power to reopen his deportation proceedings. See Abassi v. INS, 305 F.3d 1028, 1032 (9th Cir.2002). Second, Singh did not argue in his opening brief that the BIA erred in denying his motion for reconsideration. He thus waived any challenge to the BIA’s order denying reconsideration. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir.1996).

DISMISSED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.