Case: 19-60391 Document: 00515504177 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/27/2020 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED No. 19-60391 July 27, 2020 Lyle W. Cayce PAR DEEP, Clerk Petitioner, v. WILLIAM P. BARR, U. S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. Petition for Review of the Orders of the Board of Immigration Appeals BIA No. 208 542 644 Before DENNIS, ELROD, and COSTA, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Par Deep is a native and citizen of India who entered the United States illegally in 2015. Deep failed to appear for his removal proceeding and the immigration judge ordered Deep removed in absentia. Deep now seeks to reopen his removal proceeding for the second time. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) determined that he failed to establish the materially changed country conditions necessary to succeed on a successive motion to reopen. We agree and DENY Deep’s petition for review. Case: 19-60391 Document: 00515504177 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/27/2020 No. 19-60391 I. Deep is a native and citizen of India. He illegally entered the United States on October 6, 2015. He was immediately apprehended and detained by DHS. While detained, Deep expressed a fear of returning to India and an asylum officer conducted a credible fear interview. DHS determined that Deep established credible fear of persecution in India. On November 11, 2015, DHS served Deep with a notice to appear charging him with removability under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(7)(A)(i)(I). Following the proceedings on his custody status, DHS released Deep on bond and sent him a notice that he was to appear for a hearing on December 7, 2016. Deep failed to appear for this hearing and the Immigration Judge (IJ) ordered him removed in absentia. On January 17, 2017, Deep filed a motion to reopen his removal proceedings. He sought reopening based on lack of notice of the December 7, 2016 hearing, exceptional circumstances preventing his appearance, and a desire to apply for asylum and related protection from removal. The IJ denied Deep’s motion because Deep failed to show that he had not received proper notice of hearing, failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances for his failure to appear, and failed to submit an application for relief and protection from removal. Deep did not appeal the IJ’s denial to the BIA. On July 24, 2018, Deep filed a second motion to reopen his removal proceedings. In this motion, Deep sought reopening to apply for asylum, withholding of removal under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), and protection under the regulations implementing the United States’ obligations under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). As this was Deep’s second motion to reopen and it was filed more than 90 days after the removal order, it was both time-barred and barred as a successive motion. To overcome these hurdles, Deep argued that there was a changed country condition warranting reopening his removal order. 2 Case: 19-60391 Document: 00515504177 Page: 3 Date Filed: 07/27/2020 No. 19-60391 Deep, who was born into ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals