Karmjit Singh Grewal v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
KARMJIT SINGH GREWAL,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 11-73331
Agency No. A076-378-504
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted October 15, 2013**
Before: FISHER, GOULD, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Karmjit Singh Grewal, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of
the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen
removal proceedings. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review
for abuse of discretion the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen. Najmabadi v.
FILED
OCT 22 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* 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).

-- 1 of 3 --

Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny in part and dismiss in part the
petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Grewal’s untimely motion to
reopen because it considered the record and acted within its discretion in
determining that the evidence was insufficient to establish prima facie eligibility
for the relief sought. See Toufighi v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 988, 995-97 (9th Cir.
2008) (requiring movant to establish prima facie eligibility for relief and discussing
consequences of lack of credibility); Cole v. Holder, 659 F.3d 762, 771 (9th Cir.
2011).
In light of our conclusion, we do not reach Grewal’s contention regarding a
lack of time limits for filing a motion to reopen to apply for relief under the
Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2). We reject
Grewal’s contention that the agency did not adequately examine his evidence. See
Fernandez v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 592, 603 (9th Cir. 2006) (petitioner did not
overcome the presumption that the BIA reviewed the record).
We lack jurisdiction to consider Grewal’s challenge to the denial of
cancellation of removal based on a claim of exceptional and extremely unusual
hardship. See id. We also lack jurisdiction over Grewal’s unexhausted challenge
11-73331 2

-- 2 of 3 --

to the agency’s failure to consider his eligibility for CAT relief in the underlying
proceedings. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
11-73331 3

-- 3 of 3 --