Case ID: f-appx_398/html/0220-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Parvinder KAUR, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 07-73009.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Sept. 13, 2010.
    
    Filed Sept. 30, 2010.
    Jaspreet Kalra Singh, Esquire, Jaspreet Singh, New York, NY, Richard Beltran Curtis, Oakland, CA, Parvinder Kaur, Winton, CA, for Petitioner.
    Thomas Fatouros, Esquire, Senior Litigation Counsel, Oil, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Parvinder Kaur, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying her application for asylum and withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We deny the petition for review.

The BIA adopted and affirmed the IJ’s decision including the IJ’s adverse credibility determination. See Abebe v. Gonzales, 432 F.3d 1037, 1040 (9th Cir.2005) (en banc) (where the BIA cites its decision in Matter of Burbano, 20 I. & N. Dec. 872 (BIA 1994), and does not express any disagreement with any part of the IJ’s decision, the BIA adopts the IJ’s decision in its entirety).

In her opening brief, Kaur fails to raise any challenge to the agency’s dispositive adverse credibility determination. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir.1996) (issues not specifically raised and argued are deemed waived). Accordingly, Kaur’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.