Case Name: Niranjan Singh VIRK, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-12-15
Citations: 114 F. App'x 963
Docket Number: No. 03-74309; Agency No. A75-262-363
Parties: Niranjan Singh VIRK, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before GOODWIN, WALLACE, and TROTT, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 114
Pages: 963–964

Head Matter:
Niranjan Singh VIRK, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 03-74309.
Agency No. [ AXX-XXX-XXX ].
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 6, 2004.
Decided Dec. 15, 2004.
Angela M. Bean, Esq., Jesse A. Lloyd, Esq., Angela M. Bean & Associates, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.
Regional Counsel, Western Region Immigration & Naturalization Service, Laguna Niguel, CA, OIL, Office of Immigration Litigation Civil Division, Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before GOODWIN, WALLACE, and TROTT, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Niranjan Singh Virk, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") denial of his motion to reopen. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b). We review for abuse of discretion, de Martinez v. Ashcroft, 374 F.3d 759, 761 (9th Cir.2004), and we deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Virk's motion to reopen to apply for adjustment of status and a waiver of inadmissibility because the BIA considered all of the relevant factors, balanced the equities, and denied relief after determining that Virk's previous filing of a completely false asylum claim is a serious action that supports a discretionary denial of reopening. See Watkins v. INS, 63 F.3d 844, 850 (9th Cir.1995) (BIA does not abuse discretion when it considers factors, balances equities, and articulates a reasoned basis for its decision).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.