Filed: Jan. 07, 2008
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-1538 TAJINDER SINGH, Petitioner, versus MICHAEL B. MUKASEY, United States Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. (A73-570-136) Submitted: December 19, 2007 Decided: January 7, 2008 Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Martin Avila Robles, San Francisco, California, for Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler,
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-1538 TAJINDER SINGH, Petitioner, versus MICHAEL B. MUKASEY, United States Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. (A73-570-136) Submitted: December 19, 2007 Decided: January 7, 2008 Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Martin Avila Robles, San Francisco, California, for Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, ..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-1538
TAJINDER SINGH,
Petitioner,
versus
MICHAEL B. MUKASEY, United States Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A73-570-136)
Submitted: December 19, 2007 Decided: January 7, 2008
Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Martin Avila Robles, San Francisco, California, for Petitioner.
Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, Aviva L. Poczter,
Senior Litigation Counsel, Vanessa O. Lefort, Office of Immigration
Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C.,
for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Tajinder Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions
for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals
(“Board”) denying as untimely his motion to reopen removal
proceedings. We have reviewed the administrative record and find
no abuse of discretion in the Board’s order. See 8 C.F.R.
§ 1003.2(a) (2007) (“The decision to grant or deny a motion to
reopen . . . is within the discretion of the Board . . . .”);
Barry v. Gonzales,
445 F.3d 741, 744 (4th Cir. 2006) (stating abuse
of discretion standard), cert. denied,
127 S. Ct. 1147 (2007). We
therefore deny the petition for review for the reasons stated by
the Board. See In re: Singh, No. A73-570-136 (B.I.A. May 8, 2007).
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 -