Ramanjeet Kaur v. Jefferson Sessions
This text of Ramanjeet Kaur v. Jefferson Sessions (Ramanjeet Kaur v. Jefferson Sessions) 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.
Opinion
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 20 2018 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RAMANJEET KAUR, No. 16-72197
Petitioner, Agency No. A206-456-018
v. MEMORANDUM* JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted March 13, 2018**
Before: LEAVY, M. SMITH, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Ramanjeet Kaur, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying her motion to remand
following an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision ordering her removed in absentia.
Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion
* 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). the denial of a motion to remand, and review de novo constitutional claims and
questions of law. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir. 2005).
We deny the petition for review.
The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Kaur’s motion to remand
for failure to establish exceptional circumstances, where the IJ had denied her
motions to change venue. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(4)(ii); 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(e)(1);
Hernandez-Vivas v. INS, 23 F.3d 1557, 1559 (9th Cir. 1994) (the mere filing of a
request to change venue does not absolve petitioner of her obligation to appear for
the scheduled hearing).
There is no error in denying Kaur’s contentions that the agency violated due
process in her underlying removal proceedings. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241,
1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (an alien must show error and substantial prejudice to prevail
on a due process claim).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2 16-72197
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Ramanjeet Kaur v. Jefferson Sessions, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ramanjeet-kaur-v-jefferson-sessions-ca9-2018.