Case ID: f-appx_700/html/0757-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Dewan CHAND, Dewand Chand AKA Dewan Puri, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 16-71842
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted October 23, 2017 
    
    Filed November 3, 2017
    William Frick, Law Office of William Frick, Seattle, WA, for Petitioner
    OIL, Jason Wisecup, DOJ—U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent
    Before: LEAYY, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Dewan Chand, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his third untimely motion to reopen removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen for abuse of discretion. Avagyan v. Holder, 646 F.3d 672, 678 (9th Cir. 2011). We deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Chand’s motion to reopen as time and number barred, where it was his third such motion, he filed it more than eleven years after the filing deadline, and he failed to demonstrate that any exception to the time or number bars was warranted. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(A) & (C); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), (c)(3)(i)-(iv) & (3); Avagyan, 646 F.3d at 679.

Because these determinations are dis-positive, we need not reach Chand’s contentions regarding his eligibility for adjustment of status or a waiver of inadmissibility. See Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 538 (9th Cir. 2004) (courts and agencies are not required to reach non-dispositive issues).

Chand’s motion for a stay of removal is denied as moot.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.