GURJEET KAUR V. WILLIAM BARR, No. 17-71433 (9th Cir. 2020)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED DEC 8 2020 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT GURJEET KAUR, No. Petitioner, v. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 17-71433 Agency No. A095-574-966 MEMORANDUM* WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted December 2, 2020** Before: WALLACE, CLIFTON, and BRESS, Circuit Judges. Gurjeet Kaur, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying her motion to reopen her removal proceedings. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen and review de novo questions of law. Bonilla v. Lynch, 840 F.3d 575, 581 (9th Cir. 2016). We deny in part and * 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). dismiss in part the petition for review. Kaur does not raise a challenge to, and therefore waives, the BIA’s determination that her motion to reopen was untimely and that she did not establish any statutory or regulatory exception to the filing deadline. See Lopez-Vasquez v. Holder, 706 F.3d 1072, 1079-80 (9th Cir. 2013) (issues not specifically raised and argued in a party’s opening brief are waived). We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s denial of sua sponte reopening, where Kaur has not raised a legal or constitutional error. See Bonilla, 840 F.3d at 588 (“[T]his court has jurisdiction to review Board decisions denying sua sponte reopening for the limited purpose of reviewing the reasoning behind the decisions for legal or constitutional error.”). Kaur’s contention that the BIA failed to sufficiently explain its reasoning fails. See Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 990-91 (9th Cir. 2010) (holding the BIA adequately considered evidence and sufficiently announced its decision). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part. 2 17-71433

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.