Varinder Singh v. Merrick B. Garland, Attorney General

The case Varinder Singh v. Merrick B. Garland, Attorney General, primarily concerns the denial of a motion to reopen a removal order that was entered in absentia against Singh. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed the case on remand from the United States Supreme Court and vacated the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), remanding it for further consideration.

1. Notice to Appear (NTA): Singh received an NTA for his removal proceedings, but it lacked the specific date and time of the hearing, initially marked as "to be determined" (TBD). The hearing was later scheduled, but Singh did not receive timely notice of the date changes.
2. Attorney Miscommunication: Singh’s attorney, Gurpatwant Pannun, advised Singh that his hearing would occur in 2021, based on which Singh planned his actions. However, the hearing was rescheduled to an earlier date in 2018 without Singh's knowledge, as his attorney failed to file a notice of appearance and never received updates about the new hearing dates.
3. Living Arrangements and Mail: Singh lived in one house in Indiana while using the mailing address of another residence owned by a family friend, which further complicated timely receipt of the notices regarding his hearings.
4. In Absentia Removal: Due to the lack of appearance at the rescheduled hearing, Singh was ordered removed in absentia. He later discovered the deportation order through a family friend’s employee who found the mailed notices.
5. Motion to Reopen: Singh filed a motion to reopen the case, arguing "exceptional circumstances" due to his misunderstanding with his attorney and the delay in receiving his hearing notices. Both the immigration judge (IJ) and the BIA denied this motion.

The primary legal issue is whether Singh's failure to appear at his hearing due to confusion surrounding the rescheduled hearing date and his reliance on his attorney’s incorrect information constitutes “exceptional circumstances” under 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(5)(C)(i). According to the statute, "exceptional circumstances" must be events beyond the individual's control, such as serious illness or other significant life disruptions.

1. Failure to Address All Factors: The Ninth Circuit found that the BIA had failed to fully consider the totality of the circumstances. The panel held that Singh's reliance on his attorney's incorrect guidance and the rescheduling of the hearing by over two years were significant factors that the BIA did not adequately address.
2. Merits of Singh’s Case: The Ninth Circuit also noted that the BIA did not evaluate the merits of Singh’s pending applications for asylum and withholding of removal. It emphasized that failing to reopen Singh’s case without addressing these factors could lead to an unconscionable result if Singh was indeed eligible for relief from removal.
3. Attorney's Role and Ineffective Assistance: The panel criticized the BIA for relying too heavily on the technical requirements for establishing ineffective assistance of counsel under Matter of Lozada. The court held that Singh did not need to meet all of Lozada’s requirements because the issue was not solely ineffective assistance, but the broader totality of the circumstances, including Singh’s good faith reliance on his attorney's statements.
4. Exceptional Circumstances: Ultimately, the court concluded that the combination of Singh’s attorney's misguidance, the shifting hearing dates, and the merits of his underlying asylum claim c
5. ould indeed amount to “exceptional circumstances,” and that the BIA needed to reassess its decision in light of these factors.

The Ninth Circuit vacated the BIA’s denial of Singh’s motion to reopen and remanded the case for further proceedings. The court emphasized that the BIA must give a thorough, reasoned consideration to all relevant factors when determining whether exceptional circumstances existed in Singh's case. The panel granted Singh’s petition, acknowledging that deporting someone eligible for relief without full consideration would be unjust.

This case underscores the importance of fully considering all factors in removal proceedings and recognizing how attorney error and procedural complexities can result in unfair outcomes for petitioners.

You can find the case Varinder Singh v. Merrick Garland, No. 20-70050 in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on Justia through the following link: Varinder Singh v. Merrick Garland on Justia

The case Varinder Singh v. Merrick B. Garland, Attorney General, primarily concerns the denial of a motion to reopen a removal order that was entered in absentia against Singh. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed the case on remand from the United States Supreme Court and vacated the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), remanding it for further consideration.

1. Notice to Appear (NTA): Singh received an NTA for his removal proceedings, but it lacked the specific date and time of the hearing, initially marked as "to be determined" (TBD). The hearing was later scheduled, but Singh did not receive timely notice of the date changes.
2. Attorney Miscommunication: Singh’s attorney, Gurpatwant Pannun, advised Singh that his hearing would occur in 2021, based on which Singh planned his actions. However, the hearing was rescheduled to an earlier date in 2018 without Singh's knowledge, as his attorney failed to file a notice of appearance and never received updates about the new hearing dates.
3. Living Arrangements and Mail: Singh lived in one house in Indiana while using the mailing address of another residence owned by a family friend, which further complicated timely receipt of the notices regarding his hearings.
4. In Absentia Removal: Due to the lack of appearance at the rescheduled hearing, Singh was ordered removed in absentia. He later discovered the deportation order through a family friend’s employee who found the mailed notices.
5. Motion to Reopen: Singh filed a motion to reopen the case, arguing "exceptional circumstances" due to his misunderstanding with his attorney and the delay in receiving his hearing notices. Both the immigration judge (IJ) and the BIA denied this motion.

The primary legal issue is whether Singh's failure to appear at his hearing due to confusion surrounding the rescheduled hearing date and his reliance on his attorney’s incorrect information constitutes “exceptional circumstances” under 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(5)(C)(i). According to the statute, "exceptional circumstances" must be events beyond the individual's control, such as serious illness or other significant life disruptions.

1. Failure to Address All Factors: The Ninth Circuit found that the BIA had failed to fully consider the totality of the circumstances. The panel held that Singh's reliance on his attorney's incorrect guidance and the rescheduling of the hearing by over two years were significant factors that the BIA did not adequately address.
2. Merits of Singh’s Case: The Ninth Circuit also noted that the BIA did not evaluate the merits of Singh’s pending applications for asylum and withholding of removal. It emphasized that failing to reopen Singh’s case without addressing these factors could lead to an unconscionable result if Singh was indeed eligible for relief from removal.
3. Attorney's Role and Ineffective Assistance: The panel criticized the BIA for relying too heavily on the technical requirements for establishing ineffective assistance of counsel under Matter of Lozada. The court held that Singh did not need to meet all of Lozada’s requirements because the issue was not solely ineffective assistance, but the broader totality of the circumstances, including Singh’s good faith reliance on his attorney's statements.
4. Exceptional Circumstances: Ultimately, the court concluded that the combination of Singh’s attorney's misguidance, the shifting hearing dates, and the merits of his underlying asylum claim c
5. ould indeed amount to “exceptional circumstances,” and that the BIA needed to reassess its decision in light of these factors.

The Ninth Circuit vacated the BIA’s denial of Singh’s motion to reopen and remanded the case for further proceedings. The court emphasized that the BIA must give a thorough, reasoned consideration to all relevant factors when determining whether exceptional circumstances existed in Singh's case. The panel granted Singh’s petition, acknowledging that deporting someone eligible for relief without full consideration would be unjust.

This case underscores the importance of fully considering all factors in removal proceedings and recognizing how attorney error and procedural complexities can result in unfair outcomes for petitioners.

You can find the case Varinder Singh v. Merrick Garland, No. 20-70050 in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on Justia through the following link: Varinder Singh v. Merrick Garland on Justia