NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 22 2021 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JASPAL SINGH BAL, No. 20-72596 Petitioner, Agency No. A098-752-208 v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted July 19, 2021** Before: SCHROEDER, SILVERMAN, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges. Jaspal Singh Bal, a native and citizen of India, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to remand and dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision finding him removable and denying his application for withholding of removal and relief under * 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 Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the BIA’s denial of a motion to remand. Movsisian v. Ashcroft, 395 F.3d 1095, 1098 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny the petition for review. In his opening brief, Bal does not challenge the BIA’s determination that he waived any challenge to the IJ’s denial of withholding of removal based on the determination that he was convicted of a particularly serious crime. See Lopez- Vasquez v. Holder, 706 F.3d 1072, 1079-80 (9th Cir. 2013) (issues not specifically raised and argued in a party’s opening brief are waived). Bal also does not challenge the determination that he was removable as charged or the denial of deferral of removal under CAT. See id. Thus, we deny the petition for review as to removability, withholding of removal and relief under CAT . The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Bal’s motion to remand to consider new evidence for deferral of removal under CAT, where he failed to demonstrate that the evidence he submitted was previously unavailable and could not have been discovered or presented at the former hearing. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(1); see also Movsisian, 395 F.3d at 1097-98 (a motion to reopen, filed while an appeal is pending before the BIA, is treated as a motion to remand). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 2 20-72596 20-72596 Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ca9 9th Cir. Jaspal Bal v. Merrick Garland 22 July 2021 Agency Unpublished 18a56c479749ab8dbb66c727fc983127921a66a2
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals