Ramanjeet Kaur v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RAMANJEET KAUR,
Petitioner,
v.
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 16-72197
Agency No. A206-456-018
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted March 13, 2018**
Before: LEAVY, M. SMITH, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Ramanjeet Kaur, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying her motion to remand
following an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision ordering her removed in absentia.
Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion
* 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
MAR 20 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 16-72197
the denial of a motion to remand, and review de novo constitutional claims and
questions of law. 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 remand
for failure to establish exceptional circumstances, where the IJ had denied her
motions to change venue. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(4)(ii); 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(e)(1);
Hernandez-Vivas v. INS, 23 F.3d 1557, 1559 (9th Cir. 1994) (the mere filing of a
request to change venue does not absolve petitioner of her obligation to appear for
the scheduled hearing).
There is no error in denying Kaur’s contentions that the agency violated due
process in her underlying removal proceedings. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241,
1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (an alien must show error and substantial prejudice to prevail
on a due process claim).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --