NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS NOV 3 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DEWAN CHAND, Dewand Chand AKA No. 16-71842
Dewan Puri,
Agency No. A038-634-403
Petitioner,
v. MEMORANDUM*
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted October 23, 2017**
Before: LEAVY, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
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
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
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 dispositive, 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.
2 16-71842