DEWAN CHAND V. JEFFERSON SESSIONS, No. 16-71842 (9th Cir. 2017)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION NOV 3 2017 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT DEWAN CHAND, Dewand Chand AKA Dewan Puri, No. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 16-71842 Agency No. A038-634-403 Petitioner, MEMORANDUM* v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted October 23, 2017** Before: LEAVY, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges. Dewan Chand, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his third untimely motion to reopen removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen for abuse of discretion. Avagyan v. Holder, 646 F.3d 672, 678 (9th Cir. 2011). We deny the petition for review. The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Chand’s motion to reopen as time and number barred, where it was his third such motion, he filed it more than eleven years after the filing deadline, and he failed to demonstrate that any exception to the time or number bars was warranted. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(A) & (C); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), (c)(3)(i)-(iv) & (3); Avagyan, 646 F.3d at 679. Because these determinations are dispositive, we need not reach Chand’s contentions regarding his eligibility for adjustment of status or a waiver of inadmissibility. See Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 538 (9th Cir. 2004) (courts and agencies are not required to reach non-dispositive issues). Chand’s motion for a stay of removal is denied as moot. PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 2 16-71842

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.