Chand v. Gonzales

Ninth Circuit

Chand v. Gonzales

143 F. App'x 904

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedSeptember 26, 2005

DocketNo. 04-71132

StatusPublished

This text of 143 F. App'x 904 (Chand v. Gonzales) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Chand v. Gonzales, 143 F. App'x 904 (9th Cir. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

**

Dalbir Chand, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) summary affirmance of his appeal of an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) denial of his applications for asylum, withholding of removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We deny the petition for review.

Chand failed to show that any translation problems during the IJ hearing prejudiced the outcome of the hearing. See Hartooni v. INS, 21 F.3d 336, 340 (9th Cir.1994).

The voluntary departure period was stayed, and that stay will expire upon issuance of the mandate. See Desta v. Ashcroft, 365 F.3d 741 (9th Cir.2004).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

MEMORANDUM

**

Dalbir Chand, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) summary affirmance of his appeal of an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) denial of his applications for asylum, withholding of removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We deny the petition for review.

Chand failed to show that any translation problems during the IJ hearing prejudiced the outcome of the hearing. See Hartooni v. INS, 21 F.3d 336, 340 (9th Cir.1994).

The voluntary departure period was stayed, and that stay will expire upon issuance of the mandate. See Desta v. Ashcroft, 365 F.3d 741 (9th Cir.2004).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

143 F. App'x 904, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/chand-v-gonzales-ca9-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack