Cases

638 F.3d 1264 (2011) Harminder SINGH, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent. No. 05-70722. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted September 2, 2009. Filed May 3, 2011. Ajai Mathew (argued), Law Office Ajai Mathew, and Manpreet Singh Gahra *1265 (briefed), Law

MEMORANDUM ** Gurdev Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing as untimely his appeal from an immigration judge’s removal order. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a). We review de novo questions of law, Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785 (9th Cir.2005), and we grant the petition for review.

MEMORANDUM ** Sukhwinder Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen his removal proceedings to apply for asylum and withholding of removal based on changed circumstances arising in India. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion, Lara-Torres v. Ashcroft, 383 F.3d 968,

MEMORANDUM * Manpreet Singh Sra petitions for review of the denial by the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) of his motion to reopen because of ineffective assistance of counsel. As the parties are familiar with the facts, procedural history, and arguments, we will not recount them here. Sra has demonstrated ineffective assistance of counsel. He complied with the Lozada requi

MEMORANDUM ** Gurpreet Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of two Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decisions: (1) the summary affirmance of the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”); and (2) the denial of his motion to reopen based on ineffective assistance of prior counsel. We review clai

MEMORANDUM** Baldev Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) summary affirmance of an Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the petition for review. Singh’

MEMORANDUM ** Bhupinder Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) summary affirmance of an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) denial of his applications for asylum and restriction on removal. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review an adverse credibility finding and a denial of asylum under the substantial evidence standard and will up

MEMORANDUM ** Avtar Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ dismissal of his appeal of an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) denial of his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“Convention”). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence, Singh v. INS,

OPINION McKEOWN, Circuit Judge. Mahinder Singh, also known as Mohin-der Singh, a native and citizen of Punjab, India, petitions for review of a decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals. The Board denied Singh’s application for asylum and withholding of deportation on the basis of the Immigration Judge’s adverse credibility determination. In partic

MEMORANDUM ** Manpreet Singh Sekhon, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of a decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) affirming an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) denial of his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Petitioner challenges the adverse

MEMORANDUM ** Dongsheng Huang appeals pro se from the district court’s order dismissing his action seeking enforcement of an order of the United States Department of Labor. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Robinson v. United States, 586 F.3d 683, 685 (9th Cir.2009), and we affirm. The district court properly dismissed Huang’s action because Huang f

529 F.3d 1238 (2008) Joel Jonathan RAM, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent. No. 05-71190. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Submitted April 16, 2008.[*] Filed June 26, 2008. *1239 Ajai Mathew, Law Office of Manpreet Singh Gahra, Berkeley, CA, for the petitioner

MEMORANDUM * Santos Rene Lopez Funes, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’s (BIA’s) decision affirming without opinion the Immigration Judge’s (IJ’s) decision denying Funes’s applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252 and deny the petition for

MEMORANDUM ** Charanjit Singh Chandhar, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals *773summarily affirming an Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We lack jurisdicti

MEMORANDUM ** Harpreet Singh Thind, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision affirming the ruling of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Tor*608ture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1

MEMORANDUM ** Kaka Singh Sidhu, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ summary decision dismissing his appeal from an Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of his applications for asylum and withholding of removal, and request for relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence,

MEMORANDUM ** Dilbagh Singh Dilbar and Gurpreet Singh, natives and citizens of India, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order adopting and affirming the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) order denying their motion to reopen removal proceedings conducted in absentia. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for an abuse of discretion, see Lara-Torres v. Ashc

MEMORANDUM ** Tika Bahadur, a native and citizen of Nepal, petitions for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision affirming the ruling of an Immigration Judge (“U”) denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Where, as here, the BIA adopts the decision of

MEMORANDUM** The record supports the IJ’s adverse credibility finding, as petitioner’s testimony contained discrepancies and was inconsistent with his asylum page 2 application. Substantial evidence thus supports the IJ’s finding that petitioner isn’t eligible for asylum. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B). Petitioner is therefore also necessarily ineligible for withholding of removal. See Farah v. Ashcroft,

FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT GURPARAS SINGH, No. 23-1247 Petitioner, Agency No. A216-276-598 v. PAMELA BONDI *, Attorney General, OPINION Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Im