Ramanjeet Kaur v. Jefferson Sessions

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
DecidedMarch 20, 2018
Docket16-72197
StatusUnpublished

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.

Bluebook
Ramanjeet Kaur v. Jefferson Sessions, (9th Cir. 2018).

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 20 2018 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT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

Bluebook (online)
Ramanjeet Kaur v. Jefferson Sessions, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ramanjeet-kaur-v-jefferson-sessions-ca9-2018.