Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Singh v. Gonzales, 05-1142 (2005)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 05-1142 Visitors: 74
Filed: Aug. 19, 2005
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-1142 SUKHDEV SINGH, Petitioner, versus ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. (A76-003-021) Submitted: July 29, 2005 Decided: August 19, 2005 Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Sukhdev Singh, Petitioner Pro Se. M. Jocelyn Lopez Wright, Larry Patrick Cote, UNITED STATES DEPA
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-1142 SUKHDEV SINGH, Petitioner, versus ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. (A76-003-021) Submitted: July 29, 2005 Decided: August 19, 2005 Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Sukhdev Singh, Petitioner Pro Se. M. Jocelyn Lopez Wright, Larry Patrick Cote, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Sukhdev Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals affirming, without opinion, the immigration judge’s order denying his motion to reopen immigration proceedings. Based on our review of the record, we find that the immigration judge did not abuse his discretion in denying Singh’s motion to reopen as untimely. Singh failed to file his motion within 180 days of his in absentia removal order as required by 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(5)(C)(i) (2000) and 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(4)(ii) (2005). Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. PETITION DENIED - 2 -
Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer