Satpal Singh Chawla; Jasbir Kaur; Inderprey Singh Chawla v. ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SATPAL SINGH CHAWLA; JASBIR
KAUR; INDERPREY SINGH CHAWLA,
Petitioners,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 05-77410
Agency Nos. A077-427-104
A077-427-105
A077-427-108
MEMORANDUM *
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Argued and Submitted February 9, 2010
San Francisco, California
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, TROTT and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Satpal Singh Chawla (“Chawla”), his wife Jasbir Kaur, and his son
Inderpreet Singh Chawla (collectively “Petitioners”) petition for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) denial of their motion to reopen. Our
jurisdiction is controlled by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review the denial of a motion to
FILED
MAR 26 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

1 In Chawla v. Holder, No. 05-74823, Petitioners petition for review of the
BIA’s decision affirming an immigration judge’s denial of Chawla’s applications
for asylum, withholding of removal, and Convention Against Torture relief. We
address that petition in a separate, published opinion filed concurrently with this
memorandum disposition.
2
reopen for abuse of discretion. Cano-Merida v. INS, 311 F.3d 960, 964 (9th Cir.
2002). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review. 1
Petitioners argue that an immigration judge violated their rights to due
process by failing to adequately inform them of their appeal rights. Because
Petitioners argued this issue to the BIA in their motion to reopen, their “due
process challenge” is properly characterized as a challenge to the BIA’s denial of
their motion to reopen.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Petitioners’ motion to
reopen because Petitioners failed to show that the evidence they submitted in
support of their motion to reopen was previously unavailable. See 8 C.F.R.
§ 1003.2(c)(1) (requiring that evidence in support of a motion to reopen be
material and previously unavailable).
Petitioners also argue that they were denied due process because Chawla
was provided with a biased immigration judge and because of a faulty transcript.
Because Petitioners failed to raise these procedural due process challenges before
the BIA, they are not exhausted, and we lack jurisdiction to review them. See

-- 2 of 3 --

3
Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 676–78 (9th Cir. 2004) (holding that a due
process challenge must be exhausted when it involves a procedural error).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

-- 3 of 3 --