Minhas v. Holder

Ninth Circuit

Minhas v. Holder

321 F. App'x 610

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedApril 3, 2009

DocketNo. 06-74265

StatusPublished

This text of 321 F. App'x 610 (Minhas v. Holder) 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

Minhas v. Holder, 321 F. App'x 610 (9th Cir. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

**

Tejpal Singh Minhas, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) removal order. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo due process claims, Iturr[611]*611ibarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 894 (9th Cir.2003), and we deny the petition for review.

We reject Minhas’ contention that the IJ violated due process by denying a continuance, or that his due process rights were otherwise violated, because his proceedings were not “so fundamentally unfair that [he] was prevented from reasonably presenting his case.” Colmenar v. INS, 210 F.3d 967, 971 (9th Cir.2000) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Moreover, Minhas failed to demonstrate prejudice. Id.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.

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

MEMORANDUM

**

Tejpal Singh Minhas, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) removal order. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo due process claims, Iturr[611]*611ibarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 894 (9th Cir.2003), and we deny the petition for review.

We reject Minhas’ contention that the IJ violated due process by denying a continuance, or that his due process rights were otherwise violated, because his proceedings were not “so fundamentally unfair that [he] was prevented from reasonably presenting his case.” Colmenar v. INS, 210 F.3d 967, 971 (9th Cir.2000) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Moreover, Minhas failed to demonstrate prejudice. Id.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

321 F. App'x 610, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/minhas-v-holder-ca9-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack