Mandeep 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.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MANDEEP KAUR,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 09-71794
Agency No. A077-424-545
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Argued and Submitted December 5, 2012
San Francisco, California
Before: SILVERMAN, GOULD, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Mandeep Kaur, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the an
order from the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) reversing the Immigration
Judge’s (IJ) denial of the government’s motion to reopen, and the BIA’s
subsequent order, entered after remand, affirming the IJ’s denial of: (1) asylum; (2)
withholding of removal; and (3) protection under the Convention Against Torture
FILED
DEC 10 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 4 --

2
(CAT). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We grant the petition,
in part, and remand.
We review the BIA’s decision granting or denying a motion to reopen for
abuse of discretion. Israel v. INS, 710 F.2d 601, 605 (9th Cir. 1983). We review
questions of law de novo. Hamazaspyan v. Holder, 590 F.3d 744, 747 (9th Cir.
2009).
The IJ found Kaur eligible for asylum in January 2003. In March 2003, the
government filed a motion to reopen and attached an overseas investigation report
dated May 27, 2002. The report concluded that a letter by Dr. Gurpreet Singh
Pannu submitted in support of Kaur’s application for asylum was fraudulent. The
IJ denied the motion to reopen because the report was dated several months before
the January 2003 asylum hearing and the government failed to demonstrate that the
report was “not available and could not have been discovered or presented at the
former hearing.” See 8 C.F.R § 1003.23(b)(3). On appeal to the BIA, the
government argued it was not required to show the overseas report was “not
available” at the time of the former hearing because the government sought to
reopen based on fraud in the original asylum application. The BIA did not reach
this argument. Rather, the BIA ruled:

-- 2 of 4 --

3
It is not clear when the report was actually processed
and sent to the DHS requesting unit or when it was
received. As such, we will accept the DHS’ presentation
[sic] that the report was unavailable and not received
before February 2003. In view of the foregoing, we
conclude that the investigation report was new evidence
not previously available and will sustain the DHS’ appeal
and reopen proceedings. (emphasis added)
The BIA reversed the IJ’s decision to deny the motion to reopen and remanded for
a new hearing. This was error.
The BIA’s decision acknowledged “it is not clear” when the government
received the overseas report. As such, the record does not support the conclusion
that the IJ clearly erred by ruling the government failed to show the report was not
“available or capable of being discovered” at the time of the initial asylum hearing.
On this record, the report “cannot provide a basis for reopening” under 8 C.F.R. §
1003.23(b)(3). Goel v. Gonzales, 490 F.3d 735, 738 (9th Cir. 2007) (per curiam).
We grant only part of the relief sought by Kaur because no ruling has been
made on the government’s argument that it is not required to satisfy the standard in
8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(3) when it seeks to re-open based on an allegation of fraud.
See INS v. Ventura, 537 U.S. 12, 16 (2002) (per curiam). We remand so the BIA
may consider this argument in the first instance.

-- 3 of 4 --

4
In light of our disposition, we do not reach Kaur’s remaining arguments
regarding the denial of her application for asylum. But we do note that the
testimony of Kaur’s proposed witness, Dr. Pannu, was central to this case and that
Kaur’s attempt to call Dr. Pannu to testify telephonically was denied. Though we
recognize the IJ’s legitimate need to verify the identity of witnesses proffered by
the parties and to assess witness credibility, it is troubling that the record does not
show whether any procedures were explored that might have permitted Dr. Pannu’s
deposition testimony or live testimony to be considered. On remand, the IJ should
establish a record that allows review of the procedures considered to permit the
parties to examine, and cross-examine, Dr. Pannu. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(4)(B)
(an alien in a deportation proceeding “shall have a reasonable opportunity to
examine the evidence against the alien, to present evidence on the alien’s own
behalf, and to cross-examine witnesses presented by the Government”).
GRANTED IN PART; REMANDED.

-- 4 of 4 --