N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT SALW INDER

SINGH, Pe titione r, v. LORETTA E. LYNC H, Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R

e sponde n t . No. 14-72580 Age n c y No. A072-400-943 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

June 14, 2016 ** B e fore : B EA, WATFORD, a nd FR IEDLAND, C irc uit Judge s. Sa lwinde r Singh, a

native and c itiz e n of India , pe titions for re v i e w of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a l s’ (“ B IA” ) orde r dism issing his a ppe a l from an im m igration judge ’ s de c i sion de ny i ng his m otion to re ope n to re sc ind his de porta tion orde r issue d in a

bse ntia . W e re vie w for a

b use of disc re tion the de nia l



# FIL ED JUN 21 2016 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 pa

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

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2).of a

m otion to re ope n. Mohamme d v . Gonzale s , 400 F.3d 785, 791 (9th C i r. 2005). W e de fe r to the B IA’ s inte rpre tations of theIm m igration a

nd Na tiona lity Ac t in a n unpublishe d, nonpre c e de ntia l de c ision dep e nding on the thoroughne ss, re a s ona ble ne s s, c o nsiste nc y , a

nd pe rsua sive n e ss of the B IA’ s a na ly sis. Zume l v . Ly nc h , 803 F.3d 463, 471 (9th C ir. 2015). W e de ny the pe tition for re vie w. The a ge n c y

did not a b u se its disc re tion in de ny ing Singh’ s m otion to re ope n on the ground tha

t notic e wa s prope r unde r 8 U.S.C . § 1252b(a )(2)(A) (1994). Singh wa s pe rsona lly se rve d the Orde r to Show C a use (“ OSC ” ), and his a

ttorne y wa s se rve d the notic e for the August 27, 1996 he aring, whic h inform e d Singh of the t im e , date , a

nd pla c e of the he aring a

nd c onta ine d a dvisa l s wa

rning him of the c onse q ue nc e s of fa iling to a

ppe ar. Se e 8 U.S.C . § 1252b(a )(2) (1994) (se tting forth notic e re q uire m e nts); Garc i a v . IN

S , 222 F.3d 1208, 1209 (9th C ir. 2000) (notic e to the attorne y

of re c ord c onstitute s notic e to the a lie n ). The B IA re a sona

bly inte rpre te d form e r 8 U.S.C . § 1252b in c onc luding tha t the n otic e of he aring a d e quate ly e xpla ine d the c onse que n c e s of fa i ling to a ppe ar a s re quire d by

form e r subse c tions 1252b(a )(2) and (c )(1). Se eZume l , 803 F.3d a t 471. First, the

B IA re a sona

bly inte rpre te d the se provisions to re quire notic e of the c onse q ue nc e s of fa ilure to a

ppe ar, nam e ly

tha t a n orde r of de porta

tion m ay issue in a bse ntia , a nd not othe r de ta ils of the sta t utory fra m e work suc h a s tim e lim its for 1 4 - 7 2 5 8 0 2filing a

m otion to re sc ind a

nd the e ffe c t on judic ia l re vie w of a n in a bse ntia de porta tion orde r. Se e Matte r of Villalba-Sinaloa , 21 I. & N. De c . 842, 844 (B IA 1997) (ge ne ra lly , the notic e provide d to a n a lie n in the OSC ne e d not be an e xa c t re c i tation of the la

ngua ge se t forth in thesta tute , a s long a s it is re a sona ble unde r a ll the c irc um sta

nc e s). Se c ond, the wa

rning in the notic e of he aring tha t a he aring

“ m ay be he ld in y our a

b se nc e ,” and tha

t a n “ orde r of de porta

tion will be

e nte re d a ga inst y o u if the Im

m igration a

nd Na tura liz a tion Se rvic e e sta

blishe s” prope r notic e and de porta

bility suita b l y re fle c ts the sta

tutory dire c tive s. Se e 8 U.S.C . § 1252b(c )(1) (1994) (a

n a lie n “ sha ll be orde re d de porte d . . . if the Se rvic e e sta b lishe s” prope r writte n notic e and a l ie n’ s de porta bility). PE T IT IO N FO R RE V IE W DE NIE D.

1 4 - 7 2 5 8 0 3