Case Name: Angrej SINGH, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-08-15
Citations: 475 F. App'x 251
Docket Number: No. 10-73659
Parties: Angrej SINGH, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: ALARCÓN, BERZON, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 475
Pages: 251–251

Head Matter:
Angrej SINGH, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 10-73659.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Aug. 8, 2012.
Filed Aug. 15, 2012.
Daniela Ramona Razawi, Esquire, Law Office of Daniela R. Razawi, Lincoln, CA, for Petitioner.
Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, OIL, Kate Deboer Balaban, Esquire, DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: ALARCÓN, BERZON, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Angrej Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge's ("IJ") decision denying his motion to reopen exclusion proceedings. We dismiss the petition for review as moot.
The BIA dismissed Singh's appeal from the IJ's order denying his June 23, 2009, motion to reopen on the ground that the motion should have been filed with the BIA in the first instance. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a). We dismiss as moot Singh's petition challenging the procedural dismissal because, in a subsequent order, the BIA addressed the merits of the same claims.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
. Singh's petition for review of the later order was dismissed as untimely. See Singh v. Holder, No. 11-71269 (9th Cir. Mar. 12, 2012).