Filed: Jul. 27, 2006
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-1034 SUKHDEV SINGH, Petitioner, versus ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.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 12, 2006 Decided: July 27, 2006 Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Sukhdev Singh, Petitioner Pro Se. James Arthur Hunolt, Michele Yvette Francis Sarko, UNITED STATES
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-1034 SUKHDEV SINGH, Petitioner, versus ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.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 12, 2006 Decided: July 27, 2006 Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Sukhdev Singh, Petitioner Pro Se. James Arthur Hunolt, Michele Yvette Francis Sarko, UNITED STATES D..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-1034 SUKHDEV SINGH, Petitioner, versus ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.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 12, 2006 Decided: July 27, 2006 Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Sukhdev Singh, Petitioner Pro Se. James Arthur Hunolt, Michele Yvette Francis Sarko, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 (“Board”) denying his motion to reopen immigration proceedings. We have reviewed the record and the Board’s order and find that the Board did not abuse its discretion in denying Singh’s motion to reopen as untimely. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a) (2006). Accordingly, we deny the petition for review for the reasons stated by the Board. See In re: Singh, No. A76-003-021 (B.I.A. Dec. 12, 2005). 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 -