Filed: Apr. 04, 2003
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit F I L E D IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS April 4, 2003 FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk No. 02-60543 Summary Calendar BALBIR SINGH, Petitioner, versus IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE, Respondent. - Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals A72 408 279 - Before JONES, STEWART and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Balbir Singh has filed a petition for review of a final order of the Board of I
Summary: United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit F I L E D IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS April 4, 2003 FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk No. 02-60543 Summary Calendar BALBIR SINGH, Petitioner, versus IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE, Respondent. - Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals A72 408 279 - Before JONES, STEWART and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Balbir Singh has filed a petition for review of a final order of the Board of Im..
More
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
April 4, 2003
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 02-60543
Summary Calendar
BALBIR SINGH,
Petitioner,
versus
IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE,
Respondent.
----------------------------------------------------------
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
A72 408 279
----------------------------------------------------------
Before JONES, STEWART and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Balbir Singh has filed a petition for review of a final order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals (“BIA”) affirming the denial of Singh’s motion to reopen his deportation proceeding. Singh
was ordered deported in absentia on May 7, 1993, when he failed to appear for his deportation
hearing. Singh argues that he failed to receive notice of the removal hearing.
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published
and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
We have reviewed the record and the briefs submitted by the parties and hold that the BIA
did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to reopen. See Lara v. Trominski,
216 F.3d 487,
496 (5th Cir. 2000); United States v. Estrada-Trochez,
66 F.3d 733, 735-36 (5th Cir. 1995).
Accordingly, Singh’s petition for review is DENIED.
PETITION DENIED.
-2-