Ramandeep Singh Bindra v. PAMELA JO BONDI, Attorney General

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 24-2156
RAMANDEEP SINGH BINDRA,
Petitioner,
v.
PAMELA JO BONDI, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals.
Submitted: October 30, 2025 Decided: November 3, 2025
Before RUSHING and BENJAMIN, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.
Petition dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
ON BRIEF: Margaret W. Wong, MARGARET WONG & ASSOCIATES LLC,
Cleveland, Ohio, for Petitioner. Yaakov M. Roth, Acting Assistant Attorney General,
Jonathan A. Robbins, Assistant Director, Zoe J. Heller, Senior Litigation Counsel, Office
of Immigration Litigation, Civil Division, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Ramandeep Singh Bindra, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of an
order of the Board of Immigration Appeals denying, in relevant part, Bindra’s motion for
sua sponte reopening of his removal proceedings. Upon review of the parties’ briefs,
considered in conjunction with the administrative record and the relevant authorities, we
agree with the Attorney General that we lack jurisdiction to review this aspect of the subject
order.* See Lawrence v. Lynch, 826 F.3d 198, 206-07 (4th Cir. 2016) (reaffirming that this
court “lack[s] jurisdiction to review how the Board exercises its sua sponte discretion”).
Accordingly, we dismiss this petition for review for lack of jurisdiction. We dispense with
oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DISMISSED
* In this court, counsel for Bindra expressly waives the argument advanced before
the Board that reopening was warranted under the changed country conditions exception
to the 90-day filing requirement. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii). Accordingly, Bindra
has forfeited our review of this aspect of the Board’s ruling. See Fed. R. App. P.
28(a)(8)(A); Ullah v. Garland, 72 F.4th 597, 602 (4th Cir. 2023) (explaining that a party
forfeits appellate review of those issues and claims not raised in the party’s briefs).

-- 2 of 2 --