Opinion ID: 1188766
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: Did the BIA abuse its discretion in failing to address Uppal's request for a remand?

Text: Finally, Uppal contends that the BIA abused its discretion by failing to address his motion to remand the proceedings to the IJ. He argues that because he styled his appellate brief as a Brief In Support of Appeal From Decision of Immigration Judge/Motion To Remand, the BIA erred by failing to specifically rule on his request for remand. Uppal's claim is frivolous. He admits that the substance of his motion was synonymous with that of his appeal: in his motion, he argued that the IJ erred in determining that a ง 268 offense was a categorical crime involving moral turpitude, and asked for remand for further review of the removability issue. Precisely the same issue and remedy were at stake in the appeal itself. The BIA thoroughly addressed this issue, and provided a clear ruling. In support of his claim, Uppal cites Movsisian v. Ashcroft, 395 F.3d 1095, 1098 (9th Cir.2005), which holds that the BIA must provide a reasoned basis for its decision, in order to facilitate this court's review of the issue. The BIA has satisfied this standard. Uppal's claim that the BIA failed to rule on or address his motion for remand borders on disingenuous. While the BIA did not deny his motion for remand in any particular words, the order thoroughly addressed the moral turpitude issue, provided a reasoned analysis rejecting Uppal's claim, and dismissed his appeal. Accordingly, there was no abuse of discretion. The petition for review is DENIED.