NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 7 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
HARSIMRAN SINGH, No. 15-71739
Petitioner, Agency No. A078-974-211
v.
MEMORANDUM*
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 5, 2017**
San Francisco, California
Before: KOZINSKI and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges, and KEELEY,*** District
Judge.
Harsimran Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of an order
of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) denying his motion to reopen removal
*
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).
***
The Honorable Irene M. Keeley, United States District Judge for the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, sitting by designation.
proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review the denial of
a motion to reopen for abuse of discretion, Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785,
791 (9th Cir. 2005), and deny the petition for review.
1. Singh sought adjustment of status and cancellation of removal under the
Violence Against Women Act special rule to removal proceedings. See 8 U.S.C.
§ 1229b(b)(2). This special rule allows the filing of motions to reopen within one
year of the entry of a final order of removal. Id. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(iv). But, “the
Attorney General may, in the Attorney General’s discretion, waive this time
limitation in the case of an alien who demonstrates extraordinary circumstances or
extreme hardship to the alien’s child.” Id. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(iv)(III).
2. Singh filed his motion to reopen more than ten years after the entry of his
final order of removal, and the BIA did not abuse its discretion in concluding that
the motion failed to establish either the extraordinary circumstances or extreme
hardship to Singh’s child required by § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(iv)(III).
DENIED.
2