Ekamveen Singh v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
EKAMVEEN SINGH,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 19-71887
Agency No. A201-685-323
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted July 28, 2021**
Pasadena, California
Before: M. SMITH and OWENS, Circuit Judges, and ROBRENO,*** District
Judge.
Petitioner seeks review of a Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”)
decision dismissing the appeal of an Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) decision for lack
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes that this case is suitable for
decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
*** The Honorable Eduardo C. Robreno, United States District Judge for
the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, sitting by designation.
FILED
AUG 3 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2
of jurisdiction. Petitioner appealed the IJ’s denial of his motion to reopen his
credible fear determination. We dismiss the petition for lack of jurisdiction.
“We determine our own jurisdiction de novo.” Pena v. Lynch, 815 F.3d 452,
455 (9th Cir. 2016) (citing Bolanos v. Holder, 734 F.3d 875, 876 (9th Cir. 2013)).
This court held in Singh v. Barr that it lacks jurisdiction over petitions seeking
review of an IJ’s denial of a motion to reopen credible fear proceedings. 982 F.3d
778, 784 (9th Cir. 2020) (“Read together, [8 U.S.C.] §§ 1252(a)(2)(A), (D) and
1252(e) provide clear and convincing evidence that Congress intended to deprive
circuit courts of appeals of jurisdiction to review expedited removal orders and
related matters affecting those orders, including underlying negative credible fear
determinations . . . .”). Accordingly, the review Petitioner seeks is outside of our
jurisdiction.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.

-- 2 of 2 --