Kulwinder Jit SINGH PARHAR, aka Kulwinder Singh, Petitioner, v. William P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent.
Decided: September 14, 2020
Before: TASHIMA, SILVERMAN, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
Cornell Eugene Kirby, Law Office of Cornell Kirby, Seattle, WA, for Petitioner Lindsay Corliss, Rebecca Hoffberg Phillips, Trial Attorney, DOJ - U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent
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. 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, ––– U.S. ––––, 138 S. Ct. 2105, 201 L.Ed.2d 433 (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.
Was this helpful?
Response sent, thank you
Welcome to FindLaw's Cases & Codes
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.