Sukhraj Kaur v. Board of Immigration Appeals
Lakhwinder SINGH, Petitioner, v. BOARD OF IMMIGRATION APPEALS, Respondent
Opinion
SUMMARY ORDER UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review is hereby DENIED.
Petitioner Lakhwinder Singh (“Singh”), a native and citizen of India, petitions this Court for review of an April 21, 2003 order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) denying his motion to reopen. The BIA declined to reconsider its earlier order of October 21, 2002, affirming, without opinion, the decision of an Immigration Judge (“U”). The IJ rejected Singh’s application for asylum and withholding of removal under the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (“INA”), see 8 U.S.C. §§ 1158 (a), 1231(b)(3), and denied him relief under Article 3 of the United Nations Convention Against Torture (“CAT”), adopted Dec. 10, 1984, S. Treaty Doc. No. 100-20 (1988), 1465 U.N.T.S. 85; 8 C.F.R.
*342 § 208.16. Furthermore, the IJ directed Singh’s removal from the United States.
Familiarity by the parties is assumed as to the facts, the procedural context, and the specification of appellate issues. In addition to challenging the BIA’s April 21, 2003 order, Singh contests the BIA’s October 21, 2002 order affirming the IJ’s denial of his application for asylum and withholding of removal. Because Singh did not timely appeal this decision, we lack jurisdiction to review it.
See 8 U.S.C. § 1252 (b)(1);
Stone v. INS, 514 U.S. 386, 405-06 , 115 S.Ct. 1537 , 131 L.Ed.2d 465 (1995);
Ke Zhen Zhao v. U.S. D.O.J., 265 F.3d 83, 89-90 (2d Cir.2001).
We review denials of motions to reopen for abuse of discretion, reversing only “where the Board’s decision provides no rational explanation, inexplicably departs' from established policies, is devoid of any reasoning, or contains only summary or conclusory statements; that is to say, where the Board has acted in an arbitrary or capricious manner.”
Zhao, 265 F.3d at 93 (citations omitted). We hold that the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioner’s motion where the supporting documents Singh provided do not indicate that similarly situated individuals were being harassed for religious or political activities, or do not describe acts against Sikhs in Singh’s native Punjab. The articles and affidavit Singh provided the BIA are simply not similar enough to Singh’s purported persecution for us to conclude that the BIA abused its discretion in declining to reopen the case.
Accordingly, for the reasons set forth above, the petition for review is hereby DENIED.
How later courts describe this case
Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 51 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.
-
(concluding that review is limited to the BIA’s denial of a motion where no petition was filed from the underlying decision denying asylum)
-
(concluding that the Court was precluded from reaching underlying decision where petition was timely only as to denial of reopening)
-
(concluding that the BIA did not err in finding petitioner’s evidence not material because it did not rebut the agency’s underlying adverse credibility determination)
-
(holding that BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying a motion to reopen when a grant of relief would still be precluded due to a prior adverse credibility determination)
-
(concluding that BIA does not abuse its discretion in denying a motion to reopen where evidence submitted with that motion relates to same claim the agency found not credible in the underlying proceeding)
-
(concluding that our review is limited to the 15 decision that is the subject of the petition for review and that we are “precluded 16 from passing on the merits of the underlying . . . proceedings”)
-
(noting that review is limited to BIA’s decision not to reopen proceedings; does not extend to BIA’s adjudication of the merits of those proceedings)
-
(explaining that a motion to reopen does not toll the time to petition for review of the underlying removal order)
Cited by 1,206 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.