Opinions of the United
2005 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
8-22-2005
Singh v. Atty Gen USA
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 04-3329
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2005
Recommended Citation
"Singh v. Atty Gen USA" (2005). 2005 Decisions. Paper 669.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2005/669
This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2005 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.
NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
NO. 04-3329
________________
HARCHAND 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. A74 854 160
on July 19, 2004
_______________________________________
Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
April 14, 2005
Before: ROTH, MCKEE AND ALDISERT, CIRCUIT JUDGES
(Filed: August 22, 2005)
_______________________
OPINION
_______________________
PER CURIAM
Harchand Singh has filed a petition for review of an order of the Board of
Immigration Appeals (BIA), denying his third motion to reopen his removal proceedings.
On April 19, 2004, we denied his petition for review from the BIA’s June 2, 2003 order
denying his second motion to reopen. See Singh v. Ashcroft, No. 03-2811. Following
our denial, Singh filed a third motion to reopen. Attached were affidavits from neighbors
and family members stating that the police were bothering them “time and again”
concerning Singh’s whereabouts, and that his life would be in danger if he returned to
India. The BIA denied the motion to reopen as numerically barred and time barred. It
also determined that Singh had not established “changed circumstances” sufficient to
overcome the time and number limits.
As Singh is aware, we review the Board’s denial of a motion to reopen for abuse
of discretion with “broad deference” to its decision. Ezeagwuna v. Ashcroft, 325 F.3d
396, 409 (3d Cir. 2003). Singh’s third motion was clearly numerically barred and
untimely. Further, the affidavits he attached do not show any changed circumstances. The
affiants do not state that the police questioning is anything new; further, evidence that
police are questioning his family and neighbors would not compel the BIA to find that the
matter should be reopened. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii). Singh has not shown that the
Board’s discretionary decision was somehow arbitrary, irrational, or contrary to law. See
Tipu v. INS, 20 F.3d 580, 582 (3d Cir. 1994).
We will deny the petition.
2