Case Name: Harishchander 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: 2010-07-12
Citations: 386 F. App'x 720
Docket Number: No. 08-71114
Parties: Harishchander SINGH, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: ALARCÓN, LEAVY, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 386
Pages: 720–721

Head Matter:
Harishchander SINGH, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 08-71114.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted June 29, 2010.
Filed July 12, 2010.
Christopher John Stender, Esquire, Immigration Practice Group A Professional Corporation, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.
David V. Bernal, Assistant Director, Lauren Fascett, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Ronald E. Le-fevre, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: ALARCÓN, LEAVY, and GRABER, 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
Harishchander Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeal's ("BIA") order denying his motion to reissue a previous decision. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Reviewing for abuse of discretion, Perez v. Mukasey, 516 F.3d 770, 773 (9th Cir.2008), we deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not act arbitrarily, irrationally, or contrary to law by concluding that counsel's affidavit of non-receipt was insufficient to rebut the presumption of effective service. Cf. Singh v. Gonzales, 494 F.3d 1170, 1172 (9th Cir.2007) (statutory duty of service fulfilled when BIA mails decision to petitioner's or his counsel's address of record); see Singh v. INS, 295 F.3d 1037, 1039 (9th Cir.2002) (The BIA's denial of a motion to reopen shall be reversed only if it is "arbitrary, irrational or contrary to law.").
Singh's remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.