N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT GURPR EET SINGH, Pe titione r, v. ER IC H. HOLDER , Jr., Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R

e sponde n t . No. 09-73013 Age n c y No. A074-152-323 M EM O R ANDUM *

On Pe tition for R e vie w of a n Orde r of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls A rgue d a nd Subm itte d

August 27, 2013 Se a ttle , W a s hington B e fore : M c KEOW

N a nd C L IFTON, C irc uit Judge s, a nd R AKOFF, Se n ior Distric t Judge . ** Gurpre e t Singh e nte re d the Unite d State s without inspe c tion in Oc tobe r 1995. He wa s a

ppre he n de d a

nd pe rsona lly se rve d with a n Orde r to Show C a

use (“ OSC ” ) inform ing him

tha t de porta tion proc e e dings we re be ing initia te d a nd tha t 

# FIL ED SEP 26 2013 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S
. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public a t ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The Honora

ble Je d S. R a koff, Se n ior Distric t Judge for the U.S. Distric t C ourt for the Southe rn Distric t of Ne w York, sitting by de signa tion.he wa s “ re quire d to be pre se nt a t [his] de porta

tion he aring pre pa

re d to proc e e d.” The c onse que nc e s of viola ting this re quire m e nt we re m a de e x plic it: “ If y o u fa il to a ppe ar a t a ny he a ring a fte r having be e n give n writte n notic e of the date , tim e and loc ation of y o ur he a

ring, y ou will be orde re d de p orte d in y our abse nc e , if it is e sta blishe d tha

t y ou a re de porta ble and y ou ha

ve be e n provide d

the a ppropria te notic e of the he aring.” 1 Singh le ft the c ountry in De c e m

be r 1995 to a

tte m pt to obta in a sy lum

in C ana da . Singh liste d his ne w C a lifornia a ddre ss in a

Nove m be r 1995 m otion to c ha

n ge ve n u e and his a

ttorne y ’ s a ddre s s in a

De c e m be r 1995 m otion to c ha

nge ve n ue . He ne ve r inform e d the c ourt of a ny furthe r c ha

nge s of a ddre s s or his depa

rture to C ana da . In Ja

nua ry 1996, the IJ se nt notic e of an April 1996 he aring, by

re giste re d

m a il, to Singh a

n d his a ttorne y a t the la st a ddre sse s on file . B oth de live ry

re c e ipts we re signe d, though not by Singh or by

his a ttorne y . Ne ithe r Singh nor his a

ttorne y a ppe are d at

the he aring, a

nd Singh wa s orde re d de porte d in a

bse n tia . In 2007, Singh unsuc c e ssfully m ove d to re sc ind the in a bse ntia orde r. Singh now a ppe a ls the B oa

rd of Im m igration Appe a ls’ 2009 dismissa l of his a ppe a l of the d e nia l of his m otion for re sc ission. W e have jurisdic tion a nd we a ffirm .

1 B e c a use the re wa s no a

m biguity a b out wha t would ha

p p e n if Singh fa ile d to a p pe ar a t the he aring, the re wa s no due proc e ss viola tion. 2Singh a rgue s tha t the im m igrat ion judge la c ke d jurisdic tion to c onduc t the 1996 in a bse ntia he a

ring be c a use he wa s not “ de porta

ble ” a fte r he le ft the c ountry . This is inc orre c t. Jurisdic tion wa s prope r be c a use the c ha

rging doc u m e nt—

the OSC

— wa s file d a

nd pe rsona lly

se rve d on Singh whe n

he wa s in the Unite d State s in 1995. Se e 8 C .F.R . § 3.14 (1995). The B IA a de quate l y a ddre s se d Singh’ s argum e nt tha

t 8 U.S.C . § 1251(a ) (1994) lim its jurisdic tion to non-c i tiz e ns who a re

“ in the Unite d State s.” The B IA re lie d on Matte r of Brow n , 18 I & N De c . 324 (B IA 1982), whic h he ld tha t de porta tion unde r § 1251 wa s prope r e v e n whe re the non-c i tiz e n ha d le ft the Unite d State s during thepe nde nc y of de p ortat ion proc e e dings. W e a gre e ; Singh’ s unila te ra l de pa rture did not c om

pe l te rm ination of the p roc e e dings. Singh’ s a rgum e nt tha

t he ne ve r re c e i ve d notic e of the he aring a lso fa ils. The im m igration judgese nt notic e of the he a ring to Singh a

nd his a ttorne y by re giste re d m a il. The de c la ra tions of Singh a

nd his a ttorne y do not re but the pre s um ption of e ffe c t ive se rvic e . S e e Arrie t a v . I.N .S. , 117 F.3d 429 (9th C ir. 1997). AFFIRM E D.

3