Bikram Singh v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
BIKRAM SINGH,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 13-72628
Agency No. A088-734-443
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 13, 2015**
Before: LEAVY, CALLAHAN, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Bikram Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board
of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reconsider the BIA’s
March 19, 2013, order denying sua sponte reopening. Our jurisdiction is governed
by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to
FILED
MAY 20 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

-- 1 of 2 --

reconsider, and review de novo claims of constitutional violations. Mohammed v.
Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny in part and dismiss in
part the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to reconsider,
where Singh did not identify any error of law or fact in the BIA’s prior order. See
8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1). In addition, we lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s
determinations regarding sua sponte reopening. See Mejia-Hernandez v. Holder,
633 F.3d 818, 823-24 (9th Cir. 2011). Singh’s due process claim therefore fails.
See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error and prejudice
to prevail on a due process claim).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
13-72628 2

-- 2 of 2 --