Case Name: Jarnail 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: 2009-12-28
Citations: 361 F. App'x 743
Docket Number: No. 07-72956
Parties: Jarnail SINGH, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 361
Pages: 743–744

Head Matter:
Jarnail SINGH, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 07-72956.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 15, 2009.
Filed Dec. 28, 2009.
Alan M. Kaufman, Esquire, Kaufman & Kaufman, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.
David V. Bernal, Assistant Director, Lauren Fascett, Ernesto Horacio Molina, Jr., Esquire, Senior Litigation Counsel, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, 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
Jarnail Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge's ("IJ") decision denying his motion to reopen deportation proceedings conducted in absen-tia. Reviewing for abuse of discretion, Urbina-Osejo v. INS, 124 F.3d 1314, 1316 (9th Cir.1997), we deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Singh's motion to reopen because Singh failed to demonstrate "reasonable cause" for failing to appear at the October 11,1990, hearing. See id.
We lack jurisdiction to review Singh's contentions regarding the legal sufficiency of the notice of hearing and the obligation to advise the immigration court of any change of address, because Singh failed to raise those issues before the agency. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir.2004).
In light of our disposition, Singh's request for fees is denied.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.