United States v. 2020-12-08 | 17-71433 | GURJEET KAUR V. WILLIAM BARR | nonprecedential | memorandum disposition |

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

GURJEET KAUR,

Petitioner,

v.

WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,

Respondent.

No. 17-71433

Agency No. A095-574-966

MEMORANDUM
*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted December 2, 2020
**

Before: WALLACE, CLIFTON, and BRESS, Circuit Judges.

Gurjeet Kaur, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board
of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying her motion to reopen her 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 and review de novo questions
of law. Bonilla v. Lynch, 840 F.3d 575, 581 (9th Cir. 2016). We deny in part and

*
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

DEC 8 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

2 17-71433
dismiss in part the petition for review.
Kaur does not raise a challenge to, and therefore waives, the BIA’s
determination that her motion to reopen was untimely and that she did not establish
any statutory or regulatory exception to the filing deadline. 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 review the BIA’s denial of sua sponte reopening,
where Kaur has not raised a legal or constitutional error. See Bonilla, 840 F.3d at
588 (“[T]his court has jurisdiction to review Board decisions denying sua sponte
reopening for the limited purpose of reviewing the reasoning behind the decisions
for legal or constitutional error.”).
Kaur’s contention that the BIA failed to sufficiently explain its reasoning
fails. See Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 990-91 (9th Cir. 2010) (holding the
BIA adequately considered evidence and sufficiently announced its decision).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.