green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 3×
70.0 score
“because the board had authority to reopen under 1003.2(a), the board's denial of motion to reopen on jurisdictional grounds was legal error, and is alone sufficient reason to grant petition for review.”
Treatment trajectory · 2014 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2014
2020
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 39 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Elizabeth Lona v. William Barr
where, as here, the bia concludes that it lacks the authority to reopen, rather than denying a motion to reopen as an exercise of discretion, we hold that ekimian does not preclude our jurisdiction.
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Leticia Osegueda De Alfaro v. Loretta E. Lynch
because the board had authority to reopen under 1003.2(a), the board's denial of motion to reopen on jurisdictional grounds was legal error, and is alone sufficient reason to grant petition for review.
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
Jingshan Li v. Pamela Bondi
(3×)
also: Cited as authority (rule), Cited "see"
t. singh
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Argueta v. Bondi
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
However, we “lack jurisdiction to review a BIA decision not to reopen proceedings sua sponte,” Singh v. Holder, 771 F.3d 647, 650 (9th Cir. 2014) (emphasis added), unless that decision was based on “legal or constitutional error.” Lona v. Barr, 958 F.3d 1225, 1227 (9th Cir. 2020) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); see also Li, 139 F.4th at 1120 . 2.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Hung Tran v. Merrick Garland
Therefore, while the denial of a motion to reopen “is a final administrative decision subject to our judicial review,” Singh v. Holder, 771 F.3d 647, 650 (9th Cir. 2014), “this court has jurisdiction . . . for the limited purpose of reviewing the reasoning behind the decisions for legal or constitutional error.” Bonilla v. Lynch, 840 F.3d 575, 588 (9th Cir. 2016); see Lara-Garcia v. Garland, 49 F.4th 1271 , 1277 (9th Cir. 2022) (“The scope of our review under Bonilla is limited to those situations where it is obvious that the agency has denied sua sponte relief not as a matter of dis…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Rivera Recinos v. Garland
The Board thus committed legal error and abused its discretion in concluding that Petitioner’s motion was “both time- and number-barred.” See Singh v. Holder, 771 F.3d 647, 653 (9th Cir. 2014) (holding that the BIA erred, and thus abused its discretion, when it denied a motion to reopen for lack of authority).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Jose Martinez Hernandez v. Merrick Garland
See Lona v. Barr, 958 F.3d 1225, 1235 (9th Cir. 2020) (holding that there was no legal or constitutional error as the BIA’s “decision evinces no misunderstanding of the agency’s broad discretion to grant or deny sua sponte relief”); Singh v. Holder, 771 F.3d 647, 650 (9th Cir. 2014) (holding that the BIA errs in denying sua sponte reopening where the BIA impermissibly holds that it lacks authority to do so).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Ramos-Sanchez v. Garland
We lack jurisdiction to review Ramos- Sanchez’s claim that the BIA erred by not sua sponte reopening his immigration proceedings because the BIA declined to exercise its sua sponte authority as an exercise of its discretion, not because “it lack[ed] the authority to reopen.” Singh v. Holder, 771 F.3d 647, 650 (9th Cir. 2014); see also Lona, 958 F.3d at 1227 .
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Raymundo-Lima v. Garland
Lona, 958 F.3d at 1234 ; Singh v. Holder, 771 F.3d 647, 652 (9th Cir. 2014).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Juan Hernandez-Aguilar v. Merrick Garland
Singh v. Holder, 771 F.3d 647, 650 (9th Cir. 2014).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Jose Moscoso-Alvarado v. Robert Wilkinson
Because the BIA neither interpreted any law nor based the denial on a mistaken understanding of its own authority, see Singh v. Holder, 771 F.3d 647, 650 (9th Cir. 2014), its decision is “committed to agency discretion.” Menendez-Gonzalez, 929 F.3d at 1116 .
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Jorge Arce-Martinez v. William Barr
See Menendez v. Whitaker, 908 F.3d 467, 471 (9th Cir. 2018); Bonilla, 840 F.3d at 588 ; Singh v. Holder, 771 F.3d 647, 650 (9th Cir. 2014).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Abdullahi Ibrahim v. William Barr
See Bonilla v. Lynch, 840 F.3d 575, 585-588 (9th Cir. 2016); Singh v. Holder, 771 F.3d 647, 653 (9th Cir. 2014). 2.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Fernando Menendez-Gonzalez v. William Barr
A. Inconsistency with a Settled Course of Adjudication This court generally lacks jurisdiction to review decisions denying sua sponte reopening because of “the absence of a judicially manageable standard for us to evaluate the BIA’s exercise of discretion.” Singh v. Holder, 771 F.3d 647, 650 (9th Cir. 2014).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Martin Salmalanca-Padilla v. Jefferson Sessions
Cf. Singh v. Holder, 771 F.3d 647, 653 (9th Cir. 2014) (the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen on jurisdictional grounds was legal error, and thus an abuse of discretion, because the BIA had authority to reopen under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2 (a)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Ocampo v. Sessions
Singh v. Holder, 771 F.3d 647, 650 (9th Cir. 2014).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Juan Cano-Villa v. Jefferson Sessions
Singh v. Holder, 771 F.3d 647, 650 (9th Cir. 2014).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Jorge Capuchino-Lopez v. Loretta E. Lynch
(2×)
Singh v. Holder, 771 F.3d 647, 650 (9th Cir. 2014).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Eber Balan-Barrera v. Loretta E. Lynch
(2×)
Singh v. Holder, 771 F.3d 647, 650 (9th Cir. 2014).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Gustavo Bermudez-Barajas v. Loretta E. Lynch
(2×)
Singh v. Holder, 771 F.3d 647, 650 (9th Cir. 2014).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
MacArio Bonilla v. Loretta E. Lynch
Water Co. v. Jewell, 790 F.3d 977, 990 (9th Cir. 2015); Carrillo v. Holder, 781 F.3d 1155 , 1160 n.11 (9th Cir. 2015); Singh v. Holder, 771 F.3d 647, 650 (9th Cir. 2014); Mejia-Hernandez v. Holder, 633 F.3d 818, 824 (9th Cir. 2011); Pinnacle Armor, Inc. v. United States, 648 F.3d 708, 720 (9th Cir. 2011); Sharma v. Holder, 633 F.3d 865, 874 (9th Cir. 2011); Singh v. Holder, 658 F.3d at 884 n.6; Diaz- Covarrubias v. Mukasey, 551 F.3d 1114, 1117-18 (9th Cir. 2009); Minasyan v. Mukasey, 553 F.3d 1224, 1229 (9th Cir. 2009); Toufighi v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 988 , 993 n.8 (9th Cir. 2007); Malty v. Ashc…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Santos Benitez v. Loretta E. Lynch
(2×)
Singh v. Holder, 771 F.3d 647, 650 (9th Cir. 2014).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
MacArio Bonilla v. Loretta E. Lynch
(2×)
Singh held that the Board’s conclusion as to its lack of authority was contrary to plain statutory -language and our court’s precedents, and thus was “legal error.” 8 *588 Id. at 653.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Silva-Toro v. Lynch
“The BIA abuses its discretion when it acts arbitrarily, irrationally, or contrary to the law, and when it fails to provide a reasoned explanation for its actions.” Singh v. Holder, 771 F.3d 647, 650 (9th Cir.2014) (quoting Tadevo-syan v. Holder, 743 F.3d 1250, 1252-53 (9th Cir.2014)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Ilbir Campos-Mejia v. Loretta E. Lynch
Because there is no judicially manageable standard for us to evaluate, “we lack jurisdiction to review a BIA decision not to reopen proceedings sua sponte.” Singh v. Holder, 771 F.3d 647, 650 (9th Cir.2014) (citing Ekimian v. INS, 303 F.3d 1153, 1159 (9th Cir.2002)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
George Garcia v. Loretta E. Lynch
Cf. Singh v. Holder, 771 F.3d 647, 653 (9th Cir. 2014).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Minou Djavaherian v. Eric Holder, Jr.
In light of our intervening decision in Singh v. Holder, 771 F.3d 647, 650-53 (9th Cir.2014), which declined to follow Matter of Yauri , we grant the petition for review with respect to Djavaherian’s U-visa claim and remand for further proceedings consistent with this disposition.
cited
Cited "see"
Bah v. Garland
See Singh v. Holder, 771 F.3d 647 , 652–53 (9th 19 Cir. 2014). 20 The BIA may reopen sua sponte despite the time 21 limitation.
cited
Cited "see"
German Jaimes Solano v. Merrick Garland
See Singh v. Holder, 771 F.3d 647, 650 (9th Cir. 2014).
cited
Cited "see"
Vartan Abramian v. William Barr
See Singh v. Holder, 771 F.3d 647, 650 (9th Cir. 2014).
discussed
Cited "see"
Tomas Bartolome v. Jefferson Sessions, III
See Singh v. Holder, 771 F.3d 647, 650, 653 (9th Cir. 2014) (noting that when the BIA concludes that it lacks the authority to reopen, rather than denying a motion to reopen as an exercise of discretion, the panel has jurisdiction and remand is required).
discussed
Cited "see"
Hmayak Grishchyan v. Loretta E. Lynch
(2×)
See Singh v. Holder, 771 F.3d 647, 650 (9th Cir.2014).
cited
Cited "see"
Charles Beckles v. Eric Holder, Jr.
See Singh v. Holder, 771 F.3d 647, 650 (9th Cir.2014).
cited
Cited "see"
Charles Beckles v. Eric Holder, Jr.
See Singh v. Holder, 771 F.3d 647, 650 (9th Cir.2014).
cited
Cited "see"
Armando Bajacan v. Eric Holder, Jr.
See Singh v. Holder, 771 F.3d 647 (9th Cir.2014) (noting that, without reopening, petitioner was still subject to a final order of removal, even though he had received an immediate relative visa). 2.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Nagendra Nakka v. Uscis
See, e.g., Singh v. Holder, 771 F.3d 647, 653 (9th Cir. 2014) (holding that the Board of Immigration Appeals has authority to reopen an arriving alien’s case so he could apply for 24 NAKKA V.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Clara Mejia-De Calderon v. William Barr
When reviewing the BIA’s decision not to reopen Mejia’s proceeding sua sponte, our jurisdiction is limited to “reviewing the reasoning behind the decision[ ] for legal or constitutional error.” Bonilla, 840 F.3d at 588 (concluding that the denial of sua sponte reopening was based on “an incorrect legal premise” that was contrary to the substantive law governing the relief available to the petitioner); see also Singh v. Holder, 771 F.3d 647, 653 (9th Cir. 2014) (holding 2 that there was jurisdiction over the denial of sua sponte reopening because the BIA’s decision rested on the e…
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Selvin Leonardy Solis Meza v. Cissna
See, e.g., Singh, 771 F.3d at 650 (“The denial of a motion to reopen is a final administrative decision subject to our judicial review.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Cindy Lee GARCIA, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
GOOGLE, INC., a Delaware Corporation; Youtube, LLC, a California Limited Liability Company, Defendants-Appellees, and Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, an Individual, AKA Sam Bacile; Mark Basseley Youssef; Abanob Basseley Nakoula; Matthew Nekola; Ahmed Hamdy; Amal Nada; Daniel K. Caresman; Kritbag Difrat; Sobhi Bushra; Robert Bacily; Nicola Bacily; Thomas J. Tanas; Erwin Salameh; Yousseff M. Basseley; Malid Ahlawi, Defendants
v.
GOOGLE, INC., a Delaware Corporation; Youtube, LLC, a California Limited Liability Company, Defendants-Appellees, and Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, an Individual, AKA Sam Bacile; Mark Basseley Youssef; Abanob Basseley Nakoula; Matthew Nekola; Ahmed Hamdy; Amal Nada; Daniel K. Caresman; Kritbag Difrat; Sobhi Bushra; Robert Bacily; Nicola Bacily; Thomas J. Tanas; Erwin Salameh; Yousseff M. Basseley; Malid Ahlawi, Defendants
12-57302.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Nov 12, 2014.
Thomas, Wardlaw, Owens, Friedland.
Cited by 1 opinion | Published | Civil
Citer courts: Ninth Circuit (1)
ORDER
THOMAS, Circuit Judge:Upon the vote of a majority of nonre-cused active judges, it is ordered that this case be reheard en banc pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 35(a) and Circuit Rule 35-3. The three judge panel opinion shall not be cited as precedent by or to any court of the Ninth Circuit.
Judges WARDLAW, OWENS and FRIEDLAND did not participate in the deliberations or vote in this case.