FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUN 21 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SALWINDER SINGH, No. 14-72580
Petitioner, Agency No. A072-400-943
v.
MEMORANDUM*
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 14, 2016**
Before: BEA, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
Salwinder Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s decision denying his motion to reopen to rescind his
deportation order issued in absentia. We review for abuse of discretion the denial
*
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).
of a motion to reopen. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791 (9th Cir. 2005).
We defer to the BIA’s interpretations of the Immigration and Nationality Act in an
unpublished, nonprecedential decision depending on the thoroughness,
reasonableness, consistency, and persuasiveness of the BIA’s analysis. Zumel v.
Lynch, 803 F.3d 463, 471 (9th Cir. 2015). We deny the petition for review.
The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Singh’s motion to reopen
on the ground that notice was proper under 8 U.S.C. § 1252b(a)(2)(A) (1994).
Singh was personally served the Order to Show Cause (“OSC”), and his attorney
was served the notice for the August 27, 1996 hearing, which informed Singh of
the time, date, and place of the hearing and contained advisals warning him of the
consequences of failing to appear. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252b(a)(2) (1994) (setting forth
notice requirements); Garcia v. INS, 222 F.3d 1208, 1209 (9th Cir. 2000) (notice to
the attorney of record constitutes notice to the alien).
The BIA reasonably interpreted former 8 U.S.C. § 1252b in concluding that
the notice of hearing adequately explained the consequences of failing to appear as
required by former subsections 1252b(a)(2) and (c)(1). See Zumel, 803 F.3d at
471. First, the BIA reasonably interpreted these provisions to require notice of the
consequences of failure to appear, namely that an order of deportation may issue in
absentia, and not other details of the statutory framework such as time limits for
2 14-72580
filing a motion to rescind and the effect on judicial review of an in absentia
deportation order. See Matter of Villalba-Sinaloa, 21 I. & N. Dec. 842, 844 (BIA
1997) (generally, the notice provided to an alien in the OSC need not be an exact
recitation of the language set forth in the statute, as long as it is reasonable under
all the circumstances). Second, the warning in the notice of hearing that a hearing
“may be held in your absence,” and that an “order of deportation will be entered
against you if the Immigration and Naturalization Service establishes” proper
notice and deportability suitably reflects the statutory directives. See 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252b(c)(1) (1994) (an alien “shall be ordered
deported . . . if the Service establishes” proper written notice and alien’s
deportability).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 14-72580