Hundal
Hundal v. Holder
Opinion
Opinion
MEMORANDUM
Navneet Hundal, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) Burbano affirmance of an Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) decision terminating her asylum status due to a fraudulent asylum application and denying her withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Hundal also petitions for review of the BIA’s denial of her motion to remand. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 and we deny the petition.
As a threshold matter, we decline to review Hundal’s argument that the IJ abused her discretion in granting the government’s motion to reopen. The IJ granted the government’s motion to reopen on August 6, 2004. Hundal did not appeal that decision to the BIA. Although the BIA adopted and affirmed the IJ’s April 21, 2005 decision, pursuant to Matter of Burbano, that decision addressed only the issue of whether Hundal’s asylum application was fraudulent. Hundal thus failed to exhaust her administrative remedies as to the government’s motion to reopen. See Arreguin-Moreno v. Mukasey, 511 F.3d 1229, 1232 (9th Cir.2008).