Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Singh v. Lynch

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

September 1, 2016

Surinder Singh, Petitioner,
v.
Loretta E. Lynch, Attorney General, Respondent.

          Submission Deferred February 3, 2016 Resubmitted September 1, 2016 [*] Seattle, Washington

         On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals, Agency No. A079-579-046

          Bart Klein, Law Offices of Bart Klein, Seattle, Washington, for Petitioner.

          Edward E. Wiggers, Jennifer L. Lightbody and Patrick J. Glen, Senior Litigation Counsel; Donald E. Keener, Deputy Director; Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General; Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C.; for Respondent.

          Before: Alex Kozinski, Diarmuid F. O'Scannlain, and Ronald M. Gould, Circuit Judges.

         SUMMARY[**]

         Immigration

         The panel held that it lacked jurisdiction to review a petition for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals' decision following remand to an immigration judge for voluntary departure advisals.

         In petitioner's first appeal to the Board, the Board affirmed the IJ's denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and Convention Against Torture relief, but remanded to the IJ for voluntary departure advisals. Petitioner did not file a petition for review within 30 days of that Board decision.

         On remand, the IJ again granted voluntary departure with an alternate order of removal. Petitioner again appealed the IJ's decision to the Board, but did not allege that the IJ had made errors of law or fact on remand. The Board summarily dismissed petitioner's second appeal, declined to reinstate voluntary departure, and ordered petitioner removed. Petitioner then filed a timely petition for review of that decision.

         Applying Rizo v. Lynch, 810 F.3d 688 (9th Cir. 2016), the panel held that the Board's decision remanding for further proceedings as to voluntary departure did not affect the finality of an otherwise-final order of removal, and the IJ's decision as to the merits of petitioner's claims for relief became unreviewable upon expiration of the 30 day period to petition for review to this court. Because petitioner did not file a petition for review within that 30 day window, the panel held that it lacked jurisdiction over the petition.

          OPINION

          PER CURIAM.

         We must decide whether we have jurisdiction over a petition for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals decision remanding to the Immigration ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.