Filed: Apr. 27, 2012
Latest Update: Mar. 26, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-2270 DALJIT SINGH, Petitioner, v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Submitted: April 18, 2012 Decided: April 27, 2012 Before MOTZ, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Petition for review denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Daljit Singh, Petitioner Pro Se. Ada Elsie Bosque, Matthew Allan Spurlock, Office of Immigration Litigation, UN
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-2270 DALJIT SINGH, Petitioner, v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Submitted: April 18, 2012 Decided: April 27, 2012 Before MOTZ, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Petition for review denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Daljit Singh, Petitioner Pro Se. Ada Elsie Bosque, Matthew Allan Spurlock, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNI..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-2270 DALJIT SINGH, Petitioner, v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Submitted: April 18, 2012 Decided: April 27, 2012 Before MOTZ, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Petition for review denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Daljit Singh, Petitioner Pro Se. Ada Elsie Bosque, Matthew Allan Spurlock, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: Daljit 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 conclude that the Board did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to reopen. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a), (c) (2011). Accordingly, we deny the petition for review for the reasons stated by the Board. See In re: Singh (B.I.A. Oct. 21, 2011). We also deny the Attorney General’s pending motion to dismiss. 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