Case Name: Satnam Singh CHANDI, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-03-24
Citations: 371 F. App'x 839
Docket Number: No. 07-74595
Parties: Satnam Singh CHANDI, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: SCHROEDER, PREGERSON, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 371
Pages: 839–839

Head Matter:
Satnam Singh CHANDI, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 07-74595.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted March 16, 2010.
Filed March 24, 2010.
Satnam Singh Chandi, Livingston, CA, pro se.
John C. Cunningham, Esquire, Norah Ascoli Schwarz, Esquire, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Ronald E. Le-fevre, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: SCHROEDER, PREGERSON, 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).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Satnam Singh Chandi, a native and citizen of India, petitions pro se for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order granting his motion to reconsider and denying his request for voluntary departure. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law, including claims of due process violations in immigration proceedings. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir.2005). We deny the petition for review.
Chandi's due process contentions are not persuasive. The BIA did not engage in impermissible fact finding, because the immigration judge had already found Chandi not credible, in part due to contradictions surrounding his date of arrival. The BIA is permitted to review questions of law and discretion de novo. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(d)(3)(ii). Moreover, contrary to Chandi's contention, the BIA did not enter an order of removal in the first instance. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir.2000) (requiring error for a due process violation).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.