Case ID: f-appx_691/html/0873-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Amrit Pal SANGHERA, AKA Amritpal Sanghera, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 12-70035
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted May 24, 2017 
    
    Filed May 31, 2017
    Mei F. Chen, Law Office of Mei F. Chen, San Jose, CA, for Petitioner
    
      Lauren Fascett, OIL, Tiffany L. Walters, Trial Attorney, 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: THOMAS, Chief Judge, and SILVERMAN and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Amrit Pal Sanghera, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s removal order. We dismiss the petition for review.

We lack jurisdiction over this petition for review because Sanghera waived his right to appeal to the BIA, and he did not raise any contentions in his notice of appeal before the BIA that his waiver of appeal was not knowing and voluntary. See Brown v. Holder, 763 F.3d 1141, 1146 (9th Cir. 2014) (“On appeal to the BIA, however, [petitioner] did not claim that the waiver was not knowing and voluntary, and therefore we may not review this claim”).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publi- ' cation and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.