UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 09-1140

SUKHBIR SINGH, 

 Petitioner, 

 v. 

ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General, 

 Respondent. 

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration 

Appeals.

Submitted: December 2, 2009 Decided: December 30, 2009 

Before WILKINSON, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. 

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Nicholas J. Mundy, NICHOLAS J. MUNDY, PLLC, Brooklyn, New York, 

for Petitioner. Tony West, Assistant Attorney General, Daniel 

E. Goldman, Senior Litigation Counsel, Andrew B. Insenga, Office 

of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, 

Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
PER CURIAM: 

 Sukhbir Singh, a native and citizen of India, 

petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration 

Appeals (“Board”) dismissing his appeal from the immigration 

judge’s order denying his second motion to reopen. We deny the 

petition for review. 

 We review the denial of a motion to reopen for abuse 

of discretion. INS v. Doherty, 502 U.S. 314, 323 (1992); 

Stewart v. U.S. INS, 181 F.3d 587, 595 (4th Cir. 1999). Motions 

to reopen “are disfavored . . . [because] every delay works to 

the advantage of the deportable alien who wishes merely to 

remain in the United States.” Doherty, 502 U.S. at 323. The 

court will reverse the Board’s decision only if it is 

“arbitrary, irrational, or contrary to law.” Sevoian v. 

Ashcroft, 290 F.3d 166, 174 (3d Cir. 2002). 

 By regulation, a motion to reopen “must be filed no 

later than 90 days” after the date on which the administrative 

decision at issue becomes final. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2) 

(2009). The ninety day time limit does not apply (1) if the 

alien is claiming “changed country conditions arising in the 

country of nationality or the country to which removal has been 

ordered, if such evidence is material and was not available and 

would not have been discovered or presented at the previous 

proceeding,” 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii) (2006), or (2) if 

2 
3 

the alien is seeking to reopen a removal order entered in 

absentia and files the motion within 180 days of the entry of 

the order of removal or if the alien failed to receive notice of 

the hearing or did not appear through no fault of the alien 

because the alien was in federal or state custody. See 8 C.F.R. 

§ 1003.23(b)(4)(ii) (2009). 

 Insofar as Singh believes he did not receive proper 

notice of the hearing, that issue is abandoned because he does 

not raise the issue in his opening brief. See Yousefi v. INS, 

260 F.3d 318, 326 (4th Cir. 2001); Edwards v. City of Goldsboro, 

178 F.3d 231, 241 n.6 (4th Cir. 1999). We further find the 

Board did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the appeal 

because Singh failed to show he was entitled to any of the 

relief he was seeking. 

 Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. We 

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the 

court and argument would not aid the decisional process. 

PETITION DENIED