NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS SEP 14 2020 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT KULWINDER JIT SINGH PARHAR, AKA No. 18-72395 Kulwinder Singh, Agency No. A027-563-285 Petitioner, v. MEMORANDUM* WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted September 8, 2020** Before: TASHIMA, SILVERMAN, and OWENS, Circuit Judges. Kulwinder Jit Singh Parhar, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen deportation proceedings. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law. Bonilla v. Lynch, 840 F.3d 575, 581 (9th Cir. * 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). 2016). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review. Singh Parhar does not raise, and therefore waives, any challenge the agency’s denial of his motion as untimely and number barred. See Lopez-Vasquez v. Holder, 706 F.3d 1072, 1079-80 (9th Cir. 2013) (issues not specifically raised and argued in a party’s opening brief are waived). We lack jurisdiction to consider Singh Parhar’s unexhausted contentions regarding sua sponte reopening. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004) (generally requiring exhaustion of claims). Singh Parhar’s contention that the agency lacked jurisdiction under Pereira v. Sessions, 138 S. Ct. 2105 (2018), also fails. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b) (1986) (deferring to regulations to establish requirements to provide notice of the deportation proceedings); 8 C.F.R. § 242.1(b) (1986) (not requiring the time or place at which proceedings will be held to be included in the order to show cause); see also Aguilar Fermin v. Barr, 958 F.3d 887, 895 (9th Cir. 2020) (omission of certain information from notice to appear can be cured for jurisdictional purposes by later hearing notice). On June 25, 2019, the court granted a stay of removal. The stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the mandate. PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part. 2 18-72395 18-72395 Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ca9 9th Cir. Kulwinder Singh Parhar v. William Barr 14 September 2020 Agency Unpublished 0d00378e3895016a71f1111f381de9055881c8a6
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals