Court Opinion

ID: 9352708
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-09 16:00:59.074753+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:57:53.268819
License: Public Domain

20-2818
     Singh v. Garland
                                                                                   BIA
                                                                           A201 109 127

                             UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                 FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT

                                   SUMMARY ORDER
RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER
FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF
APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT=S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER
IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN
ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION “SUMMARY ORDER”). A PARTY CITING A SUMMARY ORDER
MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.

 1        At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals
 2   for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall
 3   United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of
 4   New York, on the 9th day of January, two thousand twenty-
 5   three.
 6
 7   PRESENT:
 8            DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON,
 9                 Chief Judge,
10            JOHN M. WALKER, JR.,
11            ALISON J. NATHAN,
12                 Circuit Judges.
13   _____________________________________
14
15   MANDEEP SINGH,
16            Petitioner,
17
18                      v.                                       20-2818
19                                                               NAC
20   MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED
21   STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL,
22            Respondent.
23   _____________________________________
24
25   FOR PETITIONER:                    Dalbir Singh, Dalbir Singh &
26                                      Associates, New York, NY.
27
28   FOR RESPONDENT:                    Brian Boynton, Acting Assistant
29                                      Attorney General; Song Park,
 1                                  Senior Litigation Counsel; Scott
 2                                  M. Marconda, Trial Attorney,
 3                                  Office of Immigration Litigation,
 4                                  United States Department of
 5                                  Justice, Washington, DC.
 6
 7          UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a

 8   Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby

 9   ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review

10   is DISMISSED.

11          Petitioner Mandeep Singh, a native and citizen of India,

12   seeks review of a July 30, 2020, BIA decision denying his

13   motion to reopen.        In re Mandeep Singh, No. A 201-109-127

14   (B.I.A. July 30, 2020).        We assume the parties’ familiarity

15   with the underlying facts and procedural history.

16          We lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s “entirely

17   discretionary” decision declining to reopen proceedings sua

18   sponte.    Ali v. Gonzales, 448 F.3d 515, 518 (2d Cir. 2006);

19   see also Chen v. Garland, 43 F.4th 244, 252–53 (2d Cir. 2022).

20   Although we may remand if the agency “declined to exercise

21   its sua sponte authority because it misperceived the legal

22   background and thought, incorrectly, that a reopening would

23   necessarily fail,” Mahmood v. Holder, 570 F.3d 466, 469 (2d

24   Cir.    2009),   Singh   has   not   demonstrated   that   the   agency
                                          2
 1   misperceived the law.   Contrary to Singh’s contention, it is

 2   not the agency’s policy to reopen sua sponte when noncitizens

 3   with outstanding removal orders become eligible to adjust to

 4   lawful status.   See Matter of Yauri, 25 I. & N. Dec. 103, 105

 5   (B.I.A. 2009) (“We emphasize that untimely motions to reopen

 6   to pursue an application for adjustment of status . . . will

 7   ordinarily be denied.”); see also In re J-J-, 21 I. & N. Dec.

 8   976, 984 (B.I.A. 1997) (“The power to reopen on our own motion

 9   is not meant to be used as a general cure for filing defects

10   or to otherwise circumvent the regulations, where enforcing

11   them might result in hardship.”).

12       For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is

13   DISMISSED.   All pending motions and applications are DENIED

14   and stays VACATED.

15                                FOR THE COURT:
16                                Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe,
17                                Clerk of Court

                                   3