United States v. 2020-09-14 | 18-72395 | KULWINDER SINGH PARHAR V. WILLIAM BARR | nonprecedential | memorandum disposition |

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

KULWINDER JIT SINGH PARHAR, AKA
Kulwinder Singh,

Petitioner,

v.

WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,

Respondent.

No. 18-72395

Agency No. A027-563-285

MEMORANDUM
*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted September 8, 2020
**

Before: TASHIMA, SILVERMAN, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.

Kulwinder Jit Singh Parhar, a native and citizen of India, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to
reopen deportation proceedings. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252.
We review de novo questions of law. Bonilla v. Lynch, 840 F.3d 575, 581 (9th Cir.

*
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).
FILED

SEP 14 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

2 18-72395
2016). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
Singh Parhar does not raise, and therefore waives, any challenge the
agency’s denial of his motion as untimely and number barred. 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 consider
Singh Parhar’s unexhausted contentions regarding sua sponte reopening. See
Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004) (generally requiring
exhaustion of claims).
Singh Parhar’s contention that the agency lacked jurisdiction under Pereira
v. Sessions, 138 S. Ct. 2105 (2018), also fails. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b) (1986)
(deferring to regulations to establish requirements to provide notice of the
deportation proceedings); 8 C.F.R. § 242.1(b) (1986) (not requiring the time or
place at which proceedings will be held to be included in the order to show cause);
see also Aguilar Fermin v. Barr, 958 F.3d 887, 895 (9th Cir. 2020) (omission of
certain information from notice to appear can be cured for jurisdictional purposes
by later hearing notice).
On June 25, 2019, the court granted a stay of removal. The stay of removal
remains in place until issuance of the mandate.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.