Kamaldeep Kaur Sandhu 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
KAMALDEEP KAUR SANDHU,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
Nos. 07-72850
07-74203
Agency No. A075-695-238
MEMORANDUM*
On Petitions for Review of Orders of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted October 19, 2010**
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, TALLMAN, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
In these consolidated petitions, Kamaldeep Kaur Sandhu, a native and
citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”)
orders dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) removal order and
denying her motion to reopen. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We
FILED
OCT 25 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

07-74203 2
review for substantial evidence the agency’s finding of removability, Nakamoto v.
Ashcroft, 363 F.3d 874, 881 (9th Cir. 2004), and review de novo questions of law,
Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny the petitions
for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that the
government met its burden of proving Sandhu was removable under 8 U.S.C.
§ 1227(a)(1)(A) for being inadmissible under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(C)(i) at the
time of entry where the evidence before the IJ included her sworn affidavit
admitting she had married her brother-in-law in order to enter the United States
and an approved fiancée visa petition filed on her behalf by her brother-in-law.
See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(3)(A). The admission of her sworn affidavit was not
fundamentally unfair. See Espinoza v. INS, 45 F.3d 308, 309 (9th Cir. 1995);
Cuevas-Ortega v. INS, 588 F.2d 1274, 1277-78 (9th Cir. 1979).
Sandhu has waived challenge to the BIA’s October 16, 2007, order denying
her motion to reopen.
PETITIONS FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --