Skip to main content


Reset A A Font size: Print

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Balwinder Kaur DHILLON, Petitioner, v. Merrick B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 15-70669

Decided: June 28, 2021

Before: GRABER, FRIEDLAND, and BENNETT, Circuit Judges. Jaspreet Singh, Esquire, Attorney, Law Office of Jaspreet Singh, Jackson Heights, NY, for Petitioner Sarah Abigail Byrd, U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent


Balwinder Kaur Dhillon, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying her motion to reopen proceedings.

We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen. Cano-Merida v. INS, 311 F.3d 960, 964 (9th Cir. 2002). We deny the petition for review.

We previously denied Dhillon's petition for review of the agency's determination that she was not eligible for asylum, withholding of removal, or protection under the Convention Against Torture. Dhillon v. Holder, 561 F. App'x 633 (9th Cir. 2014) (unpublished). We now conclude that the BIA did not abuse its discretion by denying her untimely motion to reopen. As the BIA observed, Dhillon did not introduce new evidence that reflects materially changed circumstances in India or that would likely have changed the outcome of her case. 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(A), (C); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(1); see Young Sun Shin v. Mukasey, 547 F.3d 1019, 1025 (9th Cir. 2008) (“[Petitioners] who seek to remand or reopen proceedings to pursue relief bear a ‘heavy burden’ of proving that, if proceedings were reopened, the new evidence would likely change the result in the case.” (quoting Matter of Coelho, 20 I. & N. Dec. 464, 473 (BIA 1992))).

The temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the mandate.


Copied to clipboard