Singh v. Sessions, 697 F. App'x 580

Gurjit Singh, an Indian national, entered the U.S. in March 2014 and was served with a Notice to Appear for removal; he failed to appear and an order of removal was entered.
On April 19, 2016 (more than 90 days after the final order), Singh moved to reopen to apply for asylum, claiming changed country conditions in India based on recent desecrations of the Sikh holy book and related protests and police violence.
Singh submitted internet news articles reporting desecrations, protests, police shootings (including deaths and injuries), arrests, and official investigations; one article reported longstanding state behavior.
DHS opposed the motion, arguing Singh failed to show materially changed country conditions and noting active government investigations and prosecutions.
The immigration judge denied the motion on a form order, indicating agreement with DHS’s opposition. Singh appealed to the BIA claiming due-process defects and that the IJ had relied solely on DHS’s opposition.
A three-member BIA panel dismissed the appeal, concluding the IJ relied on the merits of DHS’s arguments, Singh failed to compare current conditions to conditions at the time of his hearing, and the motion was inadequate; the court denied the petition for review.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Timeliness / changed country conditions for tolling the 90-day limit	Singh: new evidence of desecrations and state response shows materially changed conditions permitting late reopening	DHS: evidence shows investigations and prosecutions; no material change compared to prior conditions	Denied — evidence did not establish materially changed conditions or meaningful comparison to prior conditions; motion was inadequate
Adequacy of IJ’s form order / due process	Singh: IJ’s one-sentence, check-the-box order adopted DHS opposition, violating due process by relying solely on opposing brief	DHS/IJ: order sufficiently notified basis; IJ legitimately adopted DHS substantive arguments after review	Denied — one-sentence order permissible here; no indication IJ abdicated responsibility or was biased
BIA factfinding / abuse of discretion review	Singh: BIA misapplied law or engaged in improper factfinding in affirming denial	BIA: accepted petitioner’s evidence as true and reasonably concluded it was insufficient; applied abuse-of-discretion standard	Denied — BIA did not abuse its discretion; provided rational explanation and correctly applied standards

Maatougui v. Holder, 738 F.3d 1230 (10th Cir. 2013) (standard for abuse-of-discretion review of BIA decisions and recognition that summary orders are not necessarily inadequate)