Harmeet Singh Khamba 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.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
HARMEET SINGH KHAMBA,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 05-73471
Agency No. A072-171-756
MEMORANDUM*
HARMEET SINGH KHAMBA,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 05-76696
Agency No. A072-171-756
HARMEET SINGH KHAMBA,
Petitioner,
v.
No. 06-71477
Agency No. A072-171-756
FILED
MAR 14 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 4 --

The Honorable Stephen M. McNamee, Senior United States District**
Judge for the District of Arizona, sitting by designation.
2
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Argued and Submitted February 15, 2013
San Francisco, California
Before: SCHROEDER and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges, and MCNAMEE, Senior
District Judge.**
Petitioner Harmeet Singh Khamba (aka Gurjit Singh), a native and citizen of
India, petitions for review of several orders of the Board of Immigration Appeals
(“BIA”) after a previous remand for consideration of the Immigration Judge’s
(“IJ”) adverse credibility determination. The BIA affirmed the IJ’s decision
denying Khamba’s applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection
under the Convention Against Torture. The BIA also denied his motion to reopen
seeking adjustment of status and his motion to reconsider. We deny the petitions.
Khamba submitted a family ration card that was internally inconsistent in
listing members of his family not born as of the purported issue date, but omitting

-- 2 of 4 --

3
his brother, who was alive as of that date. His shifting explanations for these
inconsistencies are neither reasonable nor plausible. See Rizk v. Holder, 629 F.3d
1083, 1088 (9th Cir. 2011). The card was intended to establish the composition of
his family, which was critical to his assertion of persecution based on the imputed
political opinion of his brother. The inconsistencies therefore support the adverse
credibility finding because they go to the heart of his claim. Wang v. I.N.S., 352
F.3d 1250, 1259 (9th Cir. 2003).
The BIA did not abuse its discretion by denying Khamba’s motion to
reopen. The BIA has broad discretion to deny a motion to reopen. I.N.S. v.
Doherty, 502 U.S. 314, 323 (1992); Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th
Cir. 2010). The BIA concluded that Khamba was not entitled to a favorable
exercise of discretion because he submitted his asylum application under a false
identity. This decision was not an abuse of discretion because it was not “arbitrary,
irrational, or contrary to law.” Valeriano v. Gonzales, 474 F.3d 669, 672 (9th Cir.
2007) (internal quotation and citation omitted).
The denial of Khamba’s motion to reopen was not a violation of his due
process rights. Khamba’s contentions that the BIA overlooked evidence do not
overcome the presumption that the BIA reviewed all of the evidence. See
Fernandez v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 592, 603 (9th Cir. 2006). Khamba, furthermore,

-- 3 of 4 --

4
cannot show a violation of any substantive right protected by due process because
his petition for adjustment of status was lawfully denied. See Morales-Izquierdo v.
Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 600 F.3d 1076, 1091 (9th Cir. 2010).
Khamba waived review of the motion to reconsider by failing to offer any
legal arguments to contest that decision.
PETITIONS DENIED.

-- 4 of 4 --