Jaspal Singh Sandhu v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JASPAL SINGH SANDHU,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 21-237
Agency No.
A077-839-921
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 26, 2023**
Before: CANBY, S.R. THOMAS, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Jaspal Singh Sandhu, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of
the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen
removal proceedings. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We
review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen. Najmabadi v.
* 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
JUL 3 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 21-237
Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny in part and dismiss in part
the petition for review.
Because Sandhu does not challenge the BIA’s grounds for denying his
motion to reopen as untimely and for failure to establish a basis for equitable
tolling, we do not address them. See Lopez-Vasquez v. Holder, 706 F.3d 1072,
1079-80 (9th Cir. 2013).
We lack jurisdiction to consider any challenge to the BIA’s August 25,
2017, order affirming the immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision terminating
Sandhu’s asylee status because this petition for review is not timely as to that
order. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1); see also Singh v. Lynch, 835 F.3d 880, 882
(9th Cir. 2016) (“A petition for review must be filed not later than 30 days after
the date of the final order of removal. This deadline is mandatory and
jurisdictional.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).
Sandhu’s contention that the IJ erred by failing to advise him of eligibility
for relief is not properly before the court because he failed to raise it before the
BIA. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1) (exhaustion of administrative remedies
required); see also Santos-Zacaria v. Garland, 143 S. Ct. 1103, 1113-14 (2023)
(section 1252(d)(1) is a non-jurisdictional claim-processing rule).
The temporary stay of removal remains in place until the mandate issues.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

-- 2 of 2 --