Gurbir Gill v. Eric Holder, Jr. , 485 F. App'x 865 ( 2012 )


Menu:
  •                                                                              FILED
    NOT FOR PUBLICATION                              OCT 15 2012
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    GURBIR SINGH GILL, a.k.a. Baldev                  No. 11-70756
    Singh,
    Agency No. A072-683-982
    Petitioner,
    v.                                              MEMORANDUM *
    ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
    Respondent.
    On Petition for Review of an Order of the
    Board of Immigration Appeals
    Submitted October 9, 2012 **
    Before:        RAWLINSON, MURGUIA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
    Gurbir Singh Gill, 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. Our jurisdiction is governed by 
    8 U.S.C. § 1252
    .
    *
    This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
    except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
    **
    The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
    without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    We review de novo questions of law. Toufighi v. Mukasey, 
    538 F.3d 988
    , 992 (9th
    Cir. 2008). We dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review.
    We lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s discretionary decision to deny
    Singh Gill’s application for a section 212(i) waiver where Singh Gill fails to raise a
    colorable constitutional claim or question of law. See Corona-Mendez v. Holder,
    
    593 F.3d 1143
    , 1146 (9th Cir. 2010) (no court has jurisdiction to review any
    discretionary judgment regarding 212(i), unless review of the petition involves
    constitutional claims or questions of law).
    Singh Gill’s contention that the IJ violated due process by failing to
    adjudicate his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection
    under the Convention Against Torture is not supported by the record because
    Singh Gill waived or abandoned those applications for relief. See Lata v. INS, 
    204 F.3d 1241
    , 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (petitioner must show error and substantial
    prejudice to establish a due process violation).
    PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.
    2                                   11-70756
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 11-70756

Citation Numbers: 485 F. App'x 865

Judges: Rawlinson, Murguia, Watford

Filed Date: 10/15/2012

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/19/2024