Singh Sarabjeet, a.k.a. Sarabjeet Singh v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SINGH SARABJEET, a.k.a. Sarabjeet
Singh,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 11-72991
Agency No. A078-364-891
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 12, 2014**
Before: McKEOWN, WARDLAW, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judge.
Singh Sarabjeet, 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. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review
for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen. Avagyan v. Holder,
FILED
JUN 17 2014
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 --

646 F.3d 672, 674 (9th Cir. 2011). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition
for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion by denying as untimely Sarabjeet’s
motion to reopen based on ineffective assistance of counsel because he filed his
motion to reopen more than eight years after issuance of his final order of removal,
see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and failed to demonstrate the due diligence necessary
to warrant equitable tolling of the filing deadline, see Avagyan, 646 F.3d at 679.
In light of this disposition, we need not reach Sarabjeet’s nondispositive
contentions regarding his former attorney’s ineffective assistance and his eligibility
for adjustment of status. See Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 538 (9th Cir.
2004) (“As a general rule courts . . . are not required to make findings on issues the
decision of which is unnecessary to the results they reach.”).
To the extent that Sarabjeet now alleges that a second, unnamed former
attorney gave him erroneous legal advice, we lack jurisdiction to consider this
unexhausted claim. See Tijani v. Holder, 628 F.3d 1071, 1080 (9th Cir. 2010)
(“We lack jurisdiction to review legal claims not presented in an alien’s
administrative proceedings before the BIA.”).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
11-72991 2

-- 2 of 2 --