Case Name: Baldev SINGH, Petitioner, v. Alberto GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-04-11
Citations: 125 F. App'x 888
Docket Number: No. 03-74178; Agency No. A79-570-744
Parties: Baldev SINGH, Petitioner, v. Alberto GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before KOZINSKI, HAWKINS, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 125
Pages: 888–889

Head Matter:
Baldev SINGH, Petitioner, v. Alberto GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 03-74178.
Agency No. [ AXX-XXX-XXX ].
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted April 4, 2005.
Decided April 11, 2005.
Richard E. Oriakhi, Esq., Roman & Singh, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.
Regional Counsel, Western Region Immigration & Naturalization Service, Laguna Niguel, CA; and Regina Byrd, DOJ— U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before KOZINSKI, HAWKINS, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
Alberto Gonzales is substituted for his predecessor, John Ashcroft, as Attorney General of the United States, pursuant to Fed. R.App. P. 43(c)(2).
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Baldev Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") denial of his motion to reconsider its dismissal as untimely of his appeal from an immigration judge's ("IJ") denial of asylum. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reconsider. See Cano-Merida v. INS, 311 F.3d 960, 964 (9th Cir.2002). We deny the petition for review.
The time limit for filing a notice of appeal is mandatory and jurisdictional. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.38(b) (a notice of appeal must be filed within 30 calendar days from the IJ's oral decision or mailing of a written decision); Da Cruz v. INS, 4 F.3d 721, 722 (9th Cir.1993). Given that Singh did not demonstrate the type of unique circumstances that could excuse the untimely filing of the notice of appeal, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to reconsider. See Hernandez-Rivera v. INS, 630 F.2d 1352, 1355 (9th Cir.1980). Singh's due process contention therefore lacks merit.
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.