Case: 11-60013 Document: 00511641808 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/24/2011
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
October 24, 2011
No. 11-60013
Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
MAKHAN SINGH,
Petitioner
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
BIA No. A073 225 674
Before KING, JOLLY, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Makhan Singh petitions this court for review of the order of the Board of
Immigration Appeals (BIA) denying his motion to reopen his in absentia removal
proceedings. Singh argues that the BIA erred by denying his motion to reopen
because the notice of his deportation hearing was insufficient and improper.
Motions to reopen deportation proceedings are disfavored, and the moving
party bears a heavy burden. Altamirano-Lopez v. Gonzales, 435 F.3d 547, 549
(5th Cir. 2006). In reviewing the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen, this court
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.
R. 47.5.4.
Case: 11-60013 Document: 00511641808 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/24/2011
No. 11-60013
generally applies a “highly deferential abuse-of-discretion standard.” Zhao v.
Gonzales, 404 F.3d 295, 303-04 (5th Cir. 2005) (internal quotations marks and
citation omitted). The record reflects that the hearing notice was delivered via
certified mail to Singh’s last known address. Thus, there is a strong
presumption of effective service that may only be overcome by the affirmative
defense of nondelivery or improper delivery by the Postal Service. See Matter of
Grijalva, 21 I&N Dec. 27, 33-34, 37 (BIA 1995). Singh has failed to rebut this
presumption. See id.
Singh also contends that 8 U.S.C. § 1252b(a)(3), which requires the Order
to Show Cause and other notices to be provided in English and Spanish and no
other language, violates the Equal Protection Clause. The Government asserts
that Singh lacked standing to raise this argument. Singh fails to carry his
burden of showing that he has standing to raise this argument. See Lujan v.
Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560-61 (1992).
The petition for review is DENIED.
2