Malkit Singh v. John Ashcroft, Attorney General

Good Law
362 F.3d 1164·2004 WL 595227·2004 U.S. App. LEXIS 5708
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitMarch 26, 200402-71594California3,558 words

Opinion

Opinion

Wardlaw, J.

ORDER

The Opinion filed on August 15, 2003, slip op. at 11509, and published at 340 F.3d 802 (9th Cir.2003), is hereby amended. The Clerk shall file the attached Amended Opinion. With this Amended Opinion, the panel has voted unanimously to deny the petition for panel rehearing and petition for rehearing en banc.

The full court has been advised of the petition for rehearing en banc and no active judge has requested á vote on whether to hear the matter en banc. Fed. R.App. P. 35.

The petition for panel rehearing and the petition for rehearing en banc are DENIED. No further petitions for rehearing will be entertained.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

OPINION

We must decide whether the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) erred in dismissing petitioner Malkit Singh’s appeal from a decision denying his eligibility for asylum. Singh contends that the BIA erred in two separate ways, one procedural and the other substantive.

The procedural challenge is based on the BIA’s refusal to grant him leave to file a “late” brief. It was not Singh’s fault that his brief was not timely filed. He dutifully followed the regulations and procedures pertaining to filing his Notice of Appeal, but the BIA…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.