Parwinder Kaur Sian v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General

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).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
PARWINDER KAUR SIAN,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 08-70122
Agency No. A077-844-660
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 25, 2010**
Before: CANBY, THOMAS, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Parwinder Kaur Sian, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of
the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her appeal from an
immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying her application for adjustment of
FILED
JUN 03 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

08-70122 2
status. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo due
process claims. See Ram v. INS, 243 F.3d 510, 516 (9th Cir. 2001). We dismiss in
part and deny in part the petition for review.
We lack jurisdiction to review Sian’s contention that the IJ cited an incorrect
legal standard in denying her waiver of inadmissibility because she failed to raise
that issue before the BIA and thereby failed to exhaust her administrative remedies.
See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004) (this court lacks
jurisdiction to review contentions not raised before the agency).
Sian’s contention that the IJ violated the law by relying on an improper
alternative basis to deny her waiver application is not supported by the record.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.

-- 2 of 2 --