NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

SUKHRAJ SINGH, 

Petitioner, 

 v. 

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney 

General, 

Respondent.

No. 17-71719 

Agency No. A205-408-065 

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted March 15, 2022**

San Francisco, California

Before: CHRISTEN and BRESS, Circuit Judges, and FEINERMAN,*** District 

Judge.

Sukhraj Singh, a citizen of India, petitions for review of a Board of 

Immigration Appeals (BIA) decision dismissing his appeal of an Immigration Judge 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

*** The Honorable Gary Feinerman, United States District Judge for the 

Northern District of Illinois, sitting by designation.

FILED

MAR 17 2022

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 

(IJ) order denying his claims for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection 

under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. 

§ 1252, and we deny the petition.

Singh argues that the IJ violated his due process rights by denying his request 

for humanitarian asylum prior to the hearing date on that request. We review due 

process claims de novo. See Padilla-Martinez v. Holder, 770 F.3d 825, 830 (9th Cir. 

2014). To establish a due process violation in IJ proceedings, a petitioner must show 

both that the proceeding was “so fundamentally unfair that [he] was prevented from 

reasonably presenting his case,” and that he was prejudiced, “which means that the 

outcome of the proceeding may have been affected by the alleged violation.” 

Colmenar v. INS, 210 F.3d 967, 971 (9th Cir. 2000) (internal quotation marks 

omitted). Singh has not made this showing.

Singh had an opportunity to present his claim for humanitarian asylum to the 

IJ, notwithstanding his erroneous assumption that the briefing deadline had changed 

because his hearing had been rescheduled. Singh had requested and received four 

months within which to file a brief, and it was not for an additional three months—

seven months after the briefing deadline was initially set—that the IJ finally denied 

Singh’s claim. Singh also had the opportunity to argue his entitlement to 

humanitarian asylum in his initial proceedings before the IJ, and did not do so.

Yeghiazaryan v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 994 (9th Cir. 2006), does not support 
3 

Singh. In Yeghiazaryan, the BIA violated a petitioner’s due process rights by 

denying his motion to reopen before the applicable briefing deadline. Id. at 998–

1000. Here, the IJ did not deny Singh’s humanitarian asylum request until three 

months after the applicable briefing deadline had elapsed.

Singh also has not shown prejudice for purposes of his due process claim. The 

IJ considered whether Singh was entitled to humanitarian asylum based on his prior 

documentary evidence and hearing testimony, and decided that he was not. Singh 

has offered no reason to conclude that the IJ’s denial of humanitarian asylum was 

erroneous. Singh thus has not shown a violation of his due process rights. See 

Colmenar, 210 F.3d at 971.

PETITION DENIED.