U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Sukhraj Kaur v. Board of Immigration Appeals
Lakhwinder Singh, Petitioner v. Board of Immigration Appeals, Respondent
413 F.3d 232 · 139 F. App'x 341
Decided June 22, 2005
Good LawGood law: 9 citing cases carry treatments with no negative treatment.
Summary
The Second Circuit denied Lakhwinder Singh's petition for review of a BIA order refusing to reopen his removal proceedings. The court held it lacked jurisdiction to review the underlying October 21, 2002 BIA order because Singh had not timely appealed it, and held on the merits that the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to reopen because the articles and affidavit Singh submitted were not similar enough to his claimed persecution as a Sikh from Punjab. The court applied the settled abuse-of-discretion standard, under which a motion-to-reopen denial is reversed only where the Board acts arbitrarily or capriciously. No separate opinions were filed.
Holdings
- Whether the court has jurisdiction to review the BIA's October 21, 2002 order affirming the IJ's denial of asylum and withholding of removal. No. Because Singh did not timely appeal the October 21, 2002 decision, the court lacks jurisdiction to review it. 413 F.3d 232
- Whether the BIA abused its discretion in denying Singh's motion to reopen. The BIA did not abuse its discretion. The supporting documents Singh provided do not indicate that similarly situated individuals were being harassed for religious or political activities, do not describe acts against Sikhs in Singh's native Punjab, and are simply not similar enough to Singh's purported persecution to warrant reopening. 413 F.3d 342
Written by LawDiver's case analysis.
How later courts treated this case
1,113 opinions cite this case
Cited
Yuen Jin, Petitioner v. Michael B. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 143. Supplies the abuse-of-discretion standard applied to the BIA denials.
Applied
Dhali v. Bondi. Dhali failed to submit evidence overcoming the agency’s underlying adverse credibility determination.
Applied
Dhali v. Bondi. Dhali failed to submit evidence overcoming the agency’s underlying adverse credibility determination.
Applied
Zhi Yun Gao, Petitioner v. Michael B. Mukasey, Respondent, 508 F.3d 86. We review the denial of a motion to reopen for abuse of discretion.
Applied
Qin Wen Zheng, Petitioner v. Alberto R. Gonzales, 500 F.3d 143. Confined the court's review to the BIA's denial of the second motion to reopen.
See all citing casesFilter by court, year and treatment in LawDiver. Free, no login.
In this case
Opinion of the Court
SUMMARY ORDER
UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review is hereby DENIED.
Petitioner Lakhwinder Singh (“Singh”), a native and citizen of India, petitions this Court for review of an April 21, 2003 order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) denying his motion to reopen. The BIA declined to reconsider its earlier order of October 21, 2002, affirming, without opinion, the decision of an Immigration Judge (“U”). The IJ rejected Singh’s application for asylum and withholding of removal under the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (“INA”), see 8 U.S.C. §§ 1158(a), 1231(b)(3), and denied him relief under Article 3 of the United Nations Convention Against Torture (“CAT”), adopted Dec. 10, 1984, S. Treaty Doc. No. 100-20 (1988), 1465 U.N.T.S. 85; 8 C.F.R. *342 § 208.16. Furthermore, the IJ directed Singh’s removal from the United States.
Familiarity by the parties is assumed as to the facts, the procedural context, and the specification of appellate issues. In addition to challenging the BIA’s April 21, 2003 order, Singh contests the BIA’s October 21, 2002 order affirming the IJ’s denial of his application for asylum and withholding of removal. Because Singh did not timely appeal this decision, we lack jurisdiction to review it. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1); Stone v. INS, 514 U.S. 386, 405-06, 115 S.Ct. 1537, 131 L.Ed.2d 465 (1995); Ke Zhen Zhao v. U.S. D.O.J., 265 F.3d 83, 89-90 (2d Cir.2001).
We review denials of motions to reopen for abuse of discretion, reversing only “where the Board’s decision provides no rational explanation, inexplicably departs' from established policies, is devoid of any reasoning, or contains only summary or conclusory statements; that is to say, where the Board has acted in an arbitrary or capricious manner.” Zhao, 265 F.3d at 93 (citations omitted). We hold that the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioner’s motion where the supporting documents Singh provided do not indicate that similarly situated individuals were being harassed for religious or political activities, or do not describe acts against Sikhs in Singh’s native Punjab. The articles and affidavit Singh provided the BIA are simply not similar enough to Singh’s purported persecution for us to conclude that the BIA abused its discretion in declining to reopen the case.
Accordingly, for the reasons set forth above, the petition for review is hereby DENIED.
Research the next case the same way
Everything on this page, for any of 10 million opinions.
Search every way lawyers do
Citation, case name, boolean with /s and /p, or a plain-English question. Free, no login.
See what still holds
Every case shows how later courts treated it: followed, distinguished, limited or overruled.
Check a brief before you file
CiteCheck reads your brief and flags cites that don't exist, don't match, or aren't good law.
Use it where you work
The LawDiver connector brings real caselaw into Claude, ChatGPT and Cursor. An API for builders.
Try CiteCheck free or create a free account for AI research and saved folders
Related landmark cases
- Stone v. Immigration and Naturalization Service514 U.S. 386 (1995)
- Wei Guang Wang, Petitioner v. Board of Immigration Appeals, Respondent437 F.3d 270 (2006)
- Chen Yun Gao, Petitioner v. John Ashcroft299 F.3d 266 (2002)
- Mullin v. Al Otro Lado146 S.Ct. 2079 (2026)
- Farid Faham Gamal Ghaly, Petitioner v. Immigration and Naturalization Service, Respondent58 F.3d 1425 (1995)