Case Name: Gopao Gopal 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: 2013-06-20
Citations: 529 F. App'x 845
Docket Number: No. 10-73024
Parties: Gopao Gopal SINGH, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: TALLMAN, M. SMITH, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 529
Pages: 845–846

Head Matter:
Gopao Gopal SINGH, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 10-73024.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted June 18, 2013.
Filed June 20, 2013.
Gopao Gopal Singh, Eloy, AZ, pro se.
Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, OIL, Kelly J. Walls, Esquire, Trial, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: TALLMAN, M. SMITH, and HURWITZ, 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
Gopao Gopal Singh, a native and citizen of Nepal, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge's decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture ("CAT"). We dismiss Singh's petition for review.
A petition for review "must be filed not later than 30 days after the date of the final order of removal." 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1). The 30-day filing period for a petition for review is mandatory and jurisdictional. See Stone v. INS, 514 U.S. 386, 405, 115 S.Ct. 1537, 131 L.Ed.2d 465 (1995); Magtanong v. Gonzales, 494 F.3d 1190, 1191 (9th Cir.2007) (order) (per cu-riam). "A mandatory and jurisdictional rule cannot be forfeited or waived, and courts lack the authority to create equitable exceptions to such a rule." Magtanong, 494 F.3d at 1191 (internal citation omitted).
Even with the benefit of the mailbox rule, Singh has not shown he filed his petition for review within the mandatory prescribed time, because Singh did not direct that the petition for review be filed with the court when he first gave it to prison officials for mailing. See Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 273, 108 S.Ct. 2379, 101 L.Ed.2d 245 (1988) ("delivery of a notice of appeal to prison authorities would not under any theory constitute a 'filing' unless the notice were delivered for forwarding to the . court."). Thus, we dismiss Singh's petition for review and deny all pending motions as moot. See Magtanong, 494 F.3d at 1191-92.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.