U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, 2017

Harsimran Singh v. Jefferson Sessions

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Decided December 7, 2017 · Kozinski, Hurwitz, Keeley

705 F. App'x 636

Counsel

Babak Pourtavoosi, Babak Pourtavoosi, Jackson Heights, NY, for Petitioner, Leslie McKay, Esquire, Assistant Director, Anthony W. Norwood, Senior Litigation Counsel, OIL, DOJ—U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent

Cases that cite this one

2 later published cases cite this decision.

Magana-Magana v. Bondi (9th Cir. 2025)
Magana-Magana v. Garland (9th Cir. 2024)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion

MEMORANDUM ***

Harsimran Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review the denial of a motion to reopen for abuse of discretion, Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791 (9th Cir. 2005), and deny the petition for review.

1. Singh sought adjustment of status and cancellation of removal under the Violence Against Women Act special rule to removal proceedings. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(2). This special rule allows the filing of motions to reopen within one year of the entry of a final order of removal. Id. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(iv). But, “the Attorney General may, in the Attorney General’s discretion, waive this time limitation in the case of an alien who demonstrates extraordinary circumstances or extreme hardship to the alien’s • child.” Id. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(iv)(III).

2. Singh filed his motion to reopen more than ten years after the entry of his final order of removal, and the BIA did not abuse its discretion in concluding that the motion failed to establish either the extraordinary circumstances or extreme hardship to Singh’s child required by § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(iv)(III).

DENIED.

***

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.