Singh

MEMORANDUM ***

We have jurisdiction over Singh’s timely filed petition for review pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252 , and we deny the petition.

It did not violate Singh’s due process rights for the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) to affirm the immigration judge’s (IJ) decision without opinion under 8 C.F.R. § 3.1 (a)(7) (now codified at 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1 (a)(7)), Falcon Carriche v. Ashcroft, 350 F.3d 845, 851 (9th Cir.2003), and since we review the merits of the IJ’s decision, we do not address whether the regulatory prerequisites for use of the Board’s streamlining procedure were met. Id. at 855 .

It was not an abuse of discretion to deny Singh’s motion for change of venue. See Baires v. INS, 856 F.2d 89, 92 (9th Cir.1988). Singh’s conclusory reason for requesting a change of venue — that it would be in the best interests of justice and more convenient for all parties involved since the requested venue is located in the city of his new residence — failed to establish “good cause” in light of other relevant factors. 8 C.F.R. § 3.20 (b) (1999) (now codified at 8 C.F.R. § 1003.20 (b)). In addition to weighing the inconvenience a last-minute venue change would effect on the court,…