Gurpreet Singh v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
GURPREET SINGH,
Petitioner,
v.
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 16-70142
Agency No. A205-935-296
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 18, 2017**
Before: WALLACE, SILVERMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Gurpreet Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions pro se for review of
the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying Singh’s motion to
reconsider his claims for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the
Convention Against Torture. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
FILED
DEC 21 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 16-70142
review for abuse of discretion the agency’s denial of a motion for reconsideration.
Cano-Merida v. INS, 311 F.3d 960, 964 (9th Cir. 2002). We dismiss in part and
deny in part the petition for review.
We lack jurisdiction to consider the well-founded fear contentions that Singh
failed to raise before the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th
Cir. 2004).
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Singh’s motion to reconsider
his claims because he failed to identify a legal or factual error in the BIA’s prior
decision. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1) (a motion to reconsider must identify errors
of fact or law in a prior decision); Ma v. Ashcroft, 361 F.3d 553, 558 (9th Cir.
2004).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.

-- 2 of 2 --