Singh

Singh v. Ashcroft

Good Law
96 F. App'x 510
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitApril 27, 2004No. 02-73114California341 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

*511 MEMORANDUM *

After previously filing and -withdrawing claims for asylum and withholding of removal, Guru Singh moved to reopen his case before the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) to apply for asylum and withholding based on changed country conditions. Singh appeals the BIA’s denial of his motion to reopen.

We review the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen for abuse of discretion. Singh v. INS, 213 F.3d 1050, 1052 (9th Cir.2000) (citing INS v. Doherty, 502 U.S. 314, 324 , 112 S.Ct. 719 , 116 L.Ed.2d 823 (1992)). We will reverse the denial of a motion to reopen only if it is “arbitrary, irrational, or contrary to law.” Id. We review the BIA’s determinations of legal questions de novo, id., and factual findings for substantial evidence, Sharma v. INS, 89 F.3d 545, 547 (9th Cir.1996).

A motion to reopen must state the new facts an applicant seeks to prove and be supported by affidavits or other new evidentiary material. 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(6)(B); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2 (c)(1). The applicant must show that the evidence could not have been discovered and presented at the prior hearing. Doherty, 502 U.S. at 314 . This new evidence also must establish prima facie eligibility for…

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.