Case Name: Iqbal 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: 2010-08-12
Citations: 391 F. App'x 686
Docket Number: No. 09-72231
Parties: Iqbal SINGH, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: KOZINSKI, Chief Judge, REINHARDT, Circuit Judge and WHYTE, District Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 391
Pages: 686–687

Head Matter:
Iqbal SINGH, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 09-72231.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Aug. 2, 2010.
Filed Aug. 12, 2010.
Marie Kayal, Immigration Practice Group a Professional Corporation, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.
Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Oil, Daniel I. Smu-low, Trial, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: KOZINSKI, Chief Judge, REINHARDT, Circuit Judge and WHYTE, District Judge.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
The Honorable Ronald M. Whyte, Senior United States District Judge for the Northern District of California, sitting by designation.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
The BIA did not err in finding Singh removable because his robbery conviction under California Penal Code § 212.5(c) is a categorical crime of violence under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(F). See Nieves-Medrano v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1057, 1057-58 (9th Cir.2010).
Singh's removal to India moots his claim that he is entitled to protection from removal under the Convention Against Torture. See Hose v. INS, 180 F.3d 992, 996 (9th Cir.1999) (en banc).
Even assuming that Singh's due process rights were violated when immigration officials failed to transport him to his state post-conviction relief hearing, he has failed to show that the violation "potentially . affect[ed] the outcome of the proceedings." Reyes-Melendez v. INS, 342 F.3d 1001, 1007 (9th Cir.2003) (alteration and omission in original) (internal quotation marks omitted).
PETITION DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provid ed by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.