Baljit Singh v. Eric Holder, Jr. , 584 F. App'x 184 ( 2014 )

Case: 13-60920 Document: 00512833144 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/11/2014
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-60920
Summary Calendar
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
November 11, 2014
BALJIT SINGH,
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
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. A078 197 055
Before KING, JOLLY, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
Baljit Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions this court for review
of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) decision denying his sixth motion
to reopen his removal proceedings. He contends that the BIA abused its
discretion in denying his motion to reopen as untimely and numerically barred
because he was seeking asylum based on the clear probability of widespread
political and religious persecution he and his wife would face upon his removal
* 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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: 13-60920 Document: 00512833144 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/11/2014
No. 13-60920
to India. Singh has not shown that the BIA abused its discretion in concluding
that he failed to establish that his motion to reopen fell within an exception to
the time and numerical limitations on such motions. See Panjwani v. Gonzales,
401 F.3d 626, 632-33 (5th Cir. 2005).
Singh also contends that the BIA abused its discretion in refusing to
equitably toll the time and numerical limitations on motions to reopen based
on the ineffective assistance of his prior attorneys and declining to exercise its
sua sponte authority to reopen his removal proceedings so that he could pursue
adjustment of status based on his marriage to a United States citizen. Because
8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a) provides the BIA with complete discretion in determining
whether to sua sponte reopen removal proceedings, this court lacks jurisdiction
to review Singh’s challenge to the BIA’s refusal to do so. See Ramos-Bonilla v.
Mukasey, 543 F.3d 216, 219-20 (5th Cir. 2008). Further, Singh’s claim that the
time and numerical limitations should have been equitably tolled based on the
ineffective assistance of his prior attorneys is, in essence, a claim that the BIA
should have exercised its discretion to reopen the removal proceedings sua
sponte based on the equitable tolling doctrine. See id. at 220. Because the BIA
had complete discretion to deny Singh’s equitable tolling request, this court
lacks jurisdiction to review the BIA’s decision. See id.
Finally, to the extent Singh argues that the BIA’s refusal to equitably
toll the time and numerical limitations and reopen his removal proceedings
violated his due process rights, his argument is unavailing. This court “has
repeatedly held that discretionary relief from removal, including an
application for an adjustment of status, is not a liberty or property right that
requires due process protection.” Ahmed v. Gonzales, 447 F.3d 433, 440 (5th
Cir. 2006); see also Altamirano-Lopez v. Gonzales, 435 F.3d 547, 550-51 (5th
Cir. 2006).
2
Case: 13-60920 Document: 00512833144 Page: 3 Date Filed: 11/11/2014
No. 13-60920
Accordingly, Singh’s petition for review is DENIED in part and
DISMISSED in part for lack of jurisdiction. Singh’s renewed request for a stay
of removal is DENIED. The respondent’s request for summary disposition is
DENIED as moot.
3