Rashida Najmuddin Katchi; 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).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RASHIDA NAJMUDDIN KATCHI; et
al.,
Petitioners,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 10-72228
Agency Nos. A096-068-443
A096-068-444
A096-068-445
A096-068-446
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted September 10, 2012**
Before: WARDLAW, CLIFTON, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Rashida Najmuddin Katchi, Najmuddin Gulamali Katchi, and their two sons,
natives and citizens of India, petition for review of the Board of Immigration
Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”)
FILED
SEP 17 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

10-72228 2
removal order. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de
novo questions of law. Martinez-Rosas v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 926, 930 (9th Cir.
2005). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
Petitioners contend that the IJ violated due process by relying on the Form I-
213, Record of Deportable/Inadmissible Alien, to find them ineligible for the relief
requested without allowing them an opportunity to address the contents of the
Form. Petitioners’ contention is not supported by the record, and the proceedings
were not “so fundamentally unfair that they were prevented from reasonably
presenting their case.” Colmenar v. INS, 210 F.3d 967, 971 (9th Cir. 2000)
(citation omitted).
We lack jurisdiction to consider Najmuddin Gulamali Katchi’s claim that the
contents of the Form I-213 reflect a “misunderstanding” between him and an
immigration officer, because he failed to raise that claim before either the IJ or the
BIA, and thereby failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. See Barron v.
Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

-- 2 of 2 --