Amarjit Singh; Manjit Kaur; Dripinder Singh v. Pamela Bondi, Attorney General of the United States

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 25-1818
___________________________
Amarjit Singh; Manjit Kaur; Dripinder Singh
Petitioners
v.
Pamela Bondi, Attorney General of the United States
Respondent
____________
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
____________
Submitted: December 19, 2025
Filed: January 8, 2026
[Unpublished]
____________
Before BENTON, SHEPHERD, and KELLY, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Amarjit Singh, Manjit Kaur, and Dripinder Singh, natives and citizens of
India, petition for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA)
denying their tenth motion to reopen their removal proceedings. The Singhs
challenge the BIA’s refusal to exercise its discretionary authority to reopen the
removal proceedings sua sponte, but this court lacks jurisdiction to review the BIA’s

-- 1 of 2 --

-2-
decision absent a colorable constitutional claim. See Manyary v. Bondi, 129 F.4th
473, 479 (8th Cir. 2025); Chong Toua Vue v. Barr, 953 F.3d 1054, 1057–58 (8th
Cir. 2020); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a). The Singhs’ argument that the BIA violated their
due-process rights is not colorable. See Manyary, 129 F.4th at 479; Essel v. Garland,
89 F.4th 686, 689, 690 (8th Cir. 2023) (concluding that noncitizen who challenged
the BIA’s refusal to sua sponte reopen proceedings to allow him to adjust status
could not show any due-process violation because he had no protected liberty
interest in how the BIA exercised a purely discretionary remedy); Nativi-Gomez v.
Ashcroft, 344 F.3d 805, 808–09 (8th Cir. 2003) (holding that noncitizen has no
protected liberty interest in the discretionary relief of adjustment of status).
The petition is dismissed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
______________________________

-- 2 of 2 --