Satnam Singh Chandi 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).
LA/Research
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SATNAM SINGH CHANDI,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 07-74595
Agency No. A095-402-232
MEMORANDUM *
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted March 16, 2010**
Before: SCHROEDER, PREGERSON, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
Satnam Singh Chandi, a native and citizen of India, petitions pro se for
review of a Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order granting his motion to
reconsider and denying his request for voluntary departure. Our jurisdiction is
FILED
MAR 24 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

LA/Research 07-74595 2
governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law, including
claims of due process violations in immigration proceedings. Mohammed v.
Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny the petition for review.
Chandi’s due process contentions are not persuasive. The BIA did not
engage in impermissible fact finding, because the immigration judge had already
found Chandi not credible, in part due to contradictions surrounding his date of
arrival. The BIA is permitted to review questions of law and discretion de novo.
See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(d)(3)(ii). Moreover, contrary to Chandi’s contention, the
BIA did not enter an order of removal in the first instance. See Lata v. INS, 204
F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error for a due process violation).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --