FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUL 12 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
HARISHCHANDER SINGH, No. 08-71114
Petitioner, Agency No. A079-262-980
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 29, 2010 **
Before: ALARCÓN, LEAVY, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
Harishchander Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of
the Board of Immigration Appeal’s (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reissue a
previous decision. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Reviewing for
*
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).
abuse of discretion, Perez v. Mukasey, 516 F.3d 770, 773 (9th Cir. 2008), we deny
the petition for review.
The BIA did not act arbitrarily, irrationally, or contrary to law by concluding
that counsel’s affidavit of non-receipt was insufficient to rebut the presumption of
effective service. Cf. Singh v. Gonzales, 494 F.3d 1170, 1172 (9th Cir. 2007)
(statutory duty of service fulfilled when BIA mails decision to petitioner’s or his
counsel’s address of record); see Singh v. INS, 295 F.3d 1037, 1039 (9th Cir. 2002)
(The BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen shall be reversed only if it is “arbitrary,
irrational or contrary to law.”).
Singh’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2 08-71114