Case ID: f-appx_419/html/0732-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Igbal SINGH-SINGH, a.k.a. Iqbal Singh-Singh, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 09-71216.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted Feb. 15, 2011.
    
    Filed March 8, 2011.
    Teresa Salazar-Cosmos, Daly City, CA, for Petitioner.
    Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Paul F. Stone, Esquire, John M. McAdams, Jr., U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Offiee of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: CANBY, FERNANDEZ, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Igbal Singh-Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s order denying his motion to reopen deportation proceedings conducted in absentia. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Reviewing for abuse of discretion, Celis-Castellano v. Ashcroft, 298 F.3d 888, 890 (9th Cir.2002), we deny the petition for review.

The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Singh-Singh’s motion to reopen because the evidence he submitted was insufficient to establish exceptional circumstances to excuse his absence from his removal hearing. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(e)(l); see also Celis-Castellano, 298 F.3d at 890-92 (alien made no showing of the seriousness of his alleged asthma attack where, inter alia, he failed to submit evidence addressing his condition on the day of the hearing).

Singh-Singh’s due process contentions are not supported by the record.

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