Bhajan Singh v. Attorney General of the United States

NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 09-1101
___________
BHAJAN SINGH,
Petitioner
v.
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES,
Respondent
____________________________________
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
(Agency No. A79-703-413)
Immigration Judge: Daniel A. Meisner
____________________________________
Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
August 20, 2009
BARRY, SMITH and GARTH, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: September 8, 2009)
_________
OPINION
_________
PER CURIAM
Petitioner Bhajan Singh seeks review of both a final order of removal and denial of
his motion for reconsideration. For the reasons that follow, we will deny the petition for

-- 1 of 5 --

2
review.
I
Singh is a native and citizen of India. He entered the United States in March 1998
and overstayed the roughly four weeks permitted by his non-immigrant visa. Singh was
issued a notice to appear in May 2003, and he conceded removability. He sought
withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”),
alleging past and future persecution on account of his religion (Sikhism) and political
views. He conceded ineligibility for asylum based on his failure to file for such relief
within the one-year filing deadline.
At a hearing before an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) in New Jersey, Singh testified that
he was jailed once in 1978 and again in 1980 because of his membership in Akalidal, a
political party that advocates for Sikhs and for the creation of an independent Sikh state.
(A.R. 97-100, 102-103.) Singh testified that during his first incarceration, prison officials
“kept beating me on the head . . . They beat me very badly.” (A.R. 101.) He testified that
he experienced similar treatment during the second incarceration. (A.R. 103.) Singh also
testified that he fears returning to India because the police “are looking for [him].” (A.R.
104.)
The IJ found that Singh lacked credibility. The IJ’s opinion pointed to several
inconsistencies in Singh’s testimony and the dubious nature of certain exhibits, as well as
material omissions from his I-589 and I-485 applications. The IJ also reviewed the

-- 2 of 5 --

3
documentary evidence related to country conditions in India, and specifically evidence
concerning Sikhs and the Akalidal political party. The IJ stated in his decision that
“[e]ven if [Singh] did experience harsh treatment after either [the 1978 and 1980] arrests
he remained in India for more than 17 years thereafter without any problem, and the
circumstances in India [as] indicated by the background material have substantially
improved.” (A.R. 42.) Thus, the IJ found that Singh was not entitled to withholding of
removal or relief under the CAT.
In his notice of appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”), Singh argued
that he had “satisfied his evidentiary burden of proof and persuasion of showing it is more
likely than not he would be persecuted on account of being a Sikh if he were to return to
his native India,” and that he had demonstrated past and prospective torture at the hands
of the “Hindu police.” (A.R. 27.) He did not contest the IJ’s adverse credibility
determination. By order dated July 28, 2008, the BIA adopted the decision of the IJ and
dismissed Singh’s appeal, noting that he had not “addressed on appeal the omissions and
discrepancies cited by the Immigration Judge in finding that [Singh] did not testify
credibly, and we do not find the Immigration Judge’s adverse credibility determination to
be ‘clearly erroneous.’” (A.R. 21.)
Singh filed a motion for reconsideration, claiming that the BIA erred in adopting
the IJ’s decision and challenging for the first time the IJ’s adverse credibility
determination. By order dated December 19, 2008, the BIA denied the motion, finding

-- 3 of 5 --

We thus do not need to reach the Government’s jurisdictional argument concerning1
issue exhaustion as it relates to Singh’s challenge of the IJ’s adverse credibility
determination.
4
that Singh had failed to demonstrate any error by the BIA in its previous decision “based
on the record that was then before the Board.” (A.R. 2.) Singh then filed this petition for
review. In its brief, the Government asserts that we lack jurisdiction over Singh’s
challenge to the BIA’s July 28, 2008 order, and that the BIA did not abuse its discretion
in denying Singh’s motion for reconsideration.
II
As a threshold matter, we agree with the Government that we lack jurisdiction to
review the BIA’s July 28, 2008 order because Singh did not file a timely petition for
review of that order. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1) (providing for 30-day deadline in which
to file petition for review); Stone v. INS, 514 U.S. 386, 398-99 (1995) (timely motion to
reopen or reconsider does not toll running of filing period for review of BIA’s underlying
removal order). The petition for review was filed on January 15, 2009, within thirty days
of the BIA’s December 19, 2008 order, but not within thirty days of the BIA’s July 28,
2008 order. Therefore, the petition is timely only with respect to the December 19, 2008
order denying reconsideration.1
III
A motion for reconsideration is a “request that the Board re-examine its decision in

-- 4 of 5 --

light of additional legal arguments, a change of law, or perhaps an argument or aspect of
the case which was overlooked.” In re Ramos, 23 I. & N. Dec. 336, 338 (BIA 2002) (en
banc) (internal quotation and citations omitted). Such motions “shall state the reasons for
the motion by specifying the errors of fact or law in the prior Board decision and shall be
supported by pertinent authority.” 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1). We review the BIA’s denial
of Singh’s motion for reconsideration under a highly deferential abuse of discretion
standard. See Guo v. Ashcroft, 386 F.3d 556, 562 (3d Cir. 2004).
We hold that the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Singh’s motion for
reconsideration. Before the BIA, Singh’s arguments in support of reconsideration were
conclusory at best, and were for the most part identical to those previously made in his
notice of appeal. Here, Singh’s petition for review does not even address the BIA’s
decision to deny reconsideration, let alone demonstrate that the BIA erred in dismissing
his appeal for failure to contest the IJ’s adverse credibility determination. In short, Singh
offers nothing that would cause us to question the BIA’s December 19, 2008 order
denying reconsideration.
Accordingly, we will deny the petition for review.
5

-- 5 of 5 --