RASHIDA KATCHI V. ERIC HOLDER, JR., No. 10-72228 (9th Cir. 2012)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED SEP 17 2012 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT RASHIDA NAJMUDDIN KATCHI; et al., No. 10-72228 Agency Nos. A096-068-443 A096-068-444 A096-068-445 A096-068-446 Petitioners, v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, MEMORANDUM * Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted September 10, 2012 ** Before: WARDLAW, CLIFTON, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges. Rashida Najmuddin Katchi, Najmuddin Gulamali Katchi, and their two sons, natives and citizens of India, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals ( BIA ) order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge s ( IJ ) * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). removal order. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law. Martinez-Rosas v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 926, 930 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review. Petitioners contend that the IJ violated due process by relying on the Form I213, Record of Deportable/Inadmissible Alien, to find them ineligible for the relief requested without allowing them an opportunity to address the contents of the Form. Petitioners contention is not supported by the record, and the proceedings were not so fundamentally unfair that they were prevented from reasonably presenting their case. Colmenar v. INS, 210 F.3d 967, 971 (9th Cir. 2000) (citation omitted). We lack jurisdiction to consider Najmuddin Gulamali Katchi s claim that the contents of the Form I-213 reflect a misunderstanding between him and an immigration officer, because he failed to raise that claim before either the IJ or the BIA, and thereby failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part. 2 10-72228

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.