Singh v. Garland

• Decision Date: 09 January 2023
• Docket Number: 20-2818 NAC
• Parties: MANDEEP SINGH, Petitioner, v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit

MANDEEP SINGH, Petitioner, v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent.

No. 20-2818 NAC

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit

January 9, 2023

UNPUBLISHED OPINION

SUMMARY ORDER

RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT'S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION "SUMMARY ORDER"). A PARTY CITING A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.

At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 9^th day of January, two thousand twenty-three.

FOR PETITIONER: Dalbir Singh, Dalbir Singh & Associates, New York, NY.

FOR RESPONDENT: Brian Boynton, Acting Assistant Attorney General Song Park Senior Litigation Counsel; Scott M. Marconda, Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC.

PRESENT: DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON, Chief Judge, JOHN M. WALKER JR., ALISON J. NATHAN, Circuit Judges.

UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals ("BIA") decision, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review is DISMISSED.

Petitioner Mandeep Singh, a native and citizen of India, seeks review of a July 30, 2020, BIA decision denying his motion to reopen. In re Mandeep Singh, No. A 201-109-127 (B.I.A. July 30, 2020). We assume the parties' familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history.

We lack jurisdiction to review the agency's "entirely discretionary" decision declining to reopen proceedings sua sponte. Ali v. Gonzales, 448 F.3d 515 518 (2d Cir. 2006); see also Chen v. Garland, 43 F.4th 244, 252-53 (2d Cir. 2022) . Although we may remand if the agency "declined to exercise its sua sponte authority because it misperceived the legal background and thought, incorrectly, that a reopening would necessarily fail," Mahmood v. Holder, 570 F.3d 466, 469 (2d Cir. 2009), Singh has not demonstrated that the agency misperceived the law. Contrary to Singh's contention, it is not the agency's policy to...