Jaspal Bal v. Merrick Garland ( 2021 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED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