Ravinder Kaur 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
RAVINDER KAUR,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 09-72384
Agency No. A096-491-821
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted October 25, 2011**
Before: TROTT, GOULD, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
Ravinder Kaur, 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 decision finding that her asylum application was frivolous.
We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo due process
FILED
OCT 28 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

09-72384 2
claims, see Montes-Lopez v. Gonzales, 486 F.3d 1163, 1165 (9th Cir. 2007), and
we deny the petition for review.
Kaur does not challenge the agency’s frivolousness finding, but contends the
BIA erred by not considering her claims for withholding of removal and CAT
relief. The BIA did not err because Kaur did not present those claims in her brief
to the BIA. See Abebe v. Mukasey, 554 F.3d 1203, 1207-08 (9th Cir. 2009) (en
banc) (BIA is not required to consider claims that are not raised in the brief).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --