BAL v. GARLAND (2021)

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.2021-07-22No. No. 20-72596

Summary · law.co

Holding. The petition for review was denied. The Board of Immigration Appeals did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to remand where the petitioner failed to demonstrate that the new evidence was previously unavailable, and the petitioner waived challenges to removability and the denial of withholding of removal by not raising them in the opening brief.

Jaspal Singh Bal, an Indian citizen, sought review of a Board of Immigration Appeals decision that rejected his motion to remand his case and upheld an immigration judge's finding that he was removable. The immigration judge had also denied Bal's request for withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture. On appeal, Bal did not specifically challenge the determination that he had waived his right to contest the withholding of removal denial based on a conviction for a particularly serious crime, nor did he contest his removability or the denial of deferral of removal under the Convention Against Torture.

The court found that the Board of Immigration Appeals did not abuse its discretion when it rejected Bal's motion to remand so that new evidence regarding deferral of removal could be considered. Bal failed to show that the evidence he submitted was unavailable at the time of the original hearing or that he could not have discovered or presented it then. Because Bal waived several key arguments by not raising them in his opening brief, the court denied his petition for review.

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

Whether the Board of Immigration Appeals abused its discretion in denying a motion to remand to consider new evidence for deferral of removal under the Convention Against Torture
Waiver of arguments not specifically raised in an opening brief on appeal
Whether evidence submitted in a motion to remand was previously unavailable or could have been discovered earlier

Procedural posture

An immigration judge found the petitioner removable and denied his applications for withholding of removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture; the Board of Immigration Appeals denied his motion to remand and dismissed his appeal, and he petitioned for review in the Court of Appeals.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

MEMORANDUM **

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 judges (“IJ”) decision finding him removable and denying his application for withholding of removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the BIAs 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 BIAs determination that he waived any challenge to the IJs 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 partys 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 Bals 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.