Ramanjeet Kaur v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

19-71193Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJun 9, 2022

Full text

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RAMANJEET KAUR,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 19-71193
Agency No. A206-456-018
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 2, 2022**
Before: SILVERMAN, KOH, and SANCHEZ, Circuit Judges.
Ramanjeet 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 denying her motion to reopen removal proceedings
conducted in absentia. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for
* 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
JUN 9 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 19-71193
abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, and review de novo questions
of law, including claims of due process violations. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400
F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny the petition for review.
The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Kaur’s motion to reopen
as untimely, where she filed the motion more than two years after her final in
absentia removal order. 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(5)(C)(i) (in absentia removal order
may be rescinded only upon a motion to reopen filed within 180 days after the date
of the order of removal and only if the [applicant] demonstrates that the failure to
appear was because of exceptional circumstances). Because Kaur fails to
challenge the dispositive untimeliness determination, we do not reach the merits of
her exceptional circumstances claim.
We are not persuaded by Kaur’s contentions that the agency applied an
incorrect legal standard or otherwise violated her right to due process.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --

Continue your research in ChatGPT or Claude

Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.