Amritpal Singh v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
AMRITPAL SINGH,
Petitioner,
v.
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 18-71508
Agency No. A073-412-396
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 11, 2019**
Before: WALLACE, CANBY, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
Amritpal Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions pro se for review of
the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen
deportation proceedings. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We
review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen and review de novo
questions of law. Bonilla v. Lynch, 840 F.3d 575, 581 (9th Cir. 2016). We deny in
* 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 16 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 18-71508
part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
The BIA did not err in construing Singh’s motion for administrative closure
as a motion to reopen and applying the time- and number-bars. His motion was
filed after a final administrative order had been entered, thus, there were no
ongoing proceedings to administratively close. See 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(47)(B) (a
deportation order becomes final upon the BIA’s affirmance of the order or upon
the expiration of the period in which the alien is permitted to seek review by the
BIA).
The BIA did not err or abuse its discretion in denying the motion to reopen,
where the motion was filed 22 years after Singh’s final order of deportation, and
the BIA correctly stated that Singh may apply for an I-601A provisional unlawful
presence waiver with a final order of deportation in place. See 8 C.F.R.
§ 1003.2(c)(2) (a motion to reopen must be filed no later than 90 days after the
final administrative decision); 8 C.F.R. § 212.7(e)(4)(iv) (allowing aliens with final
orders of deportation to seek a provisional unlawful presence waiver if they have
first obtained an approved application for consent to reapply for admission under
8 C.F.R. § 212.2(j)).
To the extent Singh contends the BIA erred in not exercising its authority to
sua sponte reopen proceedings, we lack jurisdiction over this unexhausted
contention. See Tijani v. Holder, 628 F.3d 1071, 1080 (9th Cir. 2010) (“We lack

-- 2 of 3 --

3 18-71508
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.

-- 3 of 3 --