N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT JAGIR SINGH, Pe titione r, v. LORETTA E. LYNC H, Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R

e sponde nt . No. 14-72719 Age n c y No. A070-122-599 M EM O R ANDUM *

On Pe tition for Re vie w of a n Orde r of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls Subm itte d M arc h 15, 2016 ** B e fore : GOODW IN, LEAVY, a nd C HR ISTEN, C irc uit Judge s. Ja gir Singh, a

native and c itiz e n of India , pe titions for re vie w of the B oa rd of Im m i gration Appe a l s ’ (“ B IA” ) orde r dism issing his a ppe a l from

an im m i gration judge ’ s (“ IJ” ) de c i sion de ny ing his motion to re o pe n de porta tion proc e e dings c onduc te d in a

bse ntia . Our jurisdic tion is governe d by 8 U.S.C . § 1252. W e



# FIL ED MAR 22 2016 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at 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 pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).re vie w de novo que stions of la w, a nd re vie w for a

buse of disc re tion thede nia l of a m otion to re o pe n . A rrie t

a v . IN S , 117 F.3d 429, 430 (9th C ir. 1997). W e de ny in pa rt a nd dismiss in pa

rt the pe tition for re vie w. The a ge n c y

did not a b u se its disc re tion in deny ing Singh’ s m otion to re ope n, whe re Singh fa ile d to re but the strong pre sum ption of e ffe c t ive se rvic e ra i se d by notic e of he aring se nt by

c e rtifie d m a il to his la st known a ddre s s a n d proof of atte m pte d de live ry . Matte r of Grijalv a , 21 I. & N. De c . 27, 37 (B IA 1995) (the pre s um ption m ay be ove rc om e by

e vide nc e de m onstra

ting im prope r de live ry

or that nonde live ry

wa s not dueto the re sponde nt’ s fa i lure to providean a ddre ss whe re he c ould re c e ive m a il); s e e Arrie ta , 117 F.3d a t 431-32 (re quiring substa ntia l and proba tive e vide nc e to re but the pre s um ption). Singh’ s c onte ntion tha t the a ge nc y m isa

pplie d Matte r of Grijalv

a la c ks m e rit. The B IA did not a

buse its disc re tion in de c lining to rem and to a llow Singh to pre se nt a dditional e vide nc e re ga rding notic e of his he aring, whe re he subm itte d no ne w or pre viously

una v a ila ble e vide nc e for c onside ration by the B IA. S

e e 8 C .F.R . § 1003.2(c )(1). Singh’ s c o nte ntion tha

t the fa c tua l e rrors in theIJ’ s de c ision c onstitute a due proc e s s viola

tion fa il whe re he ha s not shown pre j udic e . Se e Lata v . IN

S , 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th C ir. 2000) (to pre va il on a due proc e ss c ha lle nge , a

n a lie n m ust 1 4 - 7 2 7 1 9 2show e rror and pre judic e ); Gu v . Gonzale

s , 454 F.3d 1014, 1020, n.2 (9th C ir. 2006) (c onside ring a

n IJ’ s isola te d e rrors in light of the

re c ord a s a

whole ). Singh’ s c o nte ntions tha

t the a ge nc y

fa ile d to giveprope r we ight to his e vide nc e , notic e wa s se nt to a n inc orre c t

spe l ling of his addre s s, he ne ve r re c e ive d notic e of the re quire m e nt tha t he inform

the a ge nc y

of a ny a ddre ss c ha

nge , a nd he wa s de nie d a

n im pa rtia l de c isionm ake r are not supporte d by the re c ord. W e la c k jurisdic tion ove r Singh’ s une xha u ste d c o nte ntions a l le ging IJ bia s, that the IJ’ s de nia l of his m otion viola t e s his dueproc e ss rights to fair notic e and an opportunity to be he ard, a nd tha t his prope r a ddre s s at the tim e of his 1998 in a bse ntia de porta tion proc e e d ings wa s a

pre viously

unspe c i fie d third a ddre ss. Se e Tijani v . Holde r , 628 F.3d 1071, 1080 (9th C ir. 2010). PE T IT IO N FO R RE V IE WDE NIE D in par t; DISM ISSE D in par t.

1 4 - 7 2 7 1 9 3