NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT _____________ No. 20-1384 _____________ GULABBHAI RAGHNATHJI MISTRY, Petitioner v. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA _______________ On Petition for Review of an Order of the United States Department of Justice Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA 1:A074-988-585) Immigration Judge: Miriam K. Mills _______________ Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) September 24, 2020 Before: McKEE, JORDAN, and RENDELL Circuit Judges (Filed September 25, 2020) _______________ OPINION* _______________ * This disposition is not an opinion of the full court and, pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7, does not constitute binding precedent. JORDAN, Circuit Judge. In 2007, an immigration judge declared Gulabbhai Mistry removable from the United States. Twelve years later, he appealed that decision to the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”). The BIA denied his appeal as untimely. Mistry now seeks review of the BIA’s refusal to reconsider that decision. We will deny his petition for review. I. BACKGROUND When Mistry, a native and citizen of India, first applied for a tourist visa to the United States, his application was rejected for providing fraudulent information. After another unsuccessful attempt at securing a visa, Mistry changed his name to Dashrath Panchal and applied for a visa under his new name. Under that name, his application was successful. Although Mistry’s visa was for a limited time, he stayed in the United States beyond that limit and eventually sought permanent resident status. In the course of applying for permanent resident status under the Mistry name, he disclosed that he was also known as Dashrath Panchal, and that he had changed his name to get a visa. In the eyes of immigration officials, the changing of his name to circumvent United States immigration law constituted fraud, and his application was denied in 1996. Later, in 2002 he was declared inadmissible.1 1 Section 1182(a)(6)(C)(i) of title 8 of the U.S. Code reads: “Any alien who, by fraud or willfully misrepresenting a material fact, seeks to procure (or has sought to procure or has procured) a visa, other documentation, or admission into the United States or other benefit provided under this chapter is inadmissible.” When an individual is declared inadmissible, that means that he or she is not permitted to enter the United States. See 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a). If that person nonetheless enters the United States, inadmissibility becomes a ground for removability. See 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(1)(A). 2 In 2005, Mistry received a notice to appear before an immigration judge. That notice stated that he was charged as being removable from the United States, but the statute listed on the document was the statute pertaining to inadmissibility, not removability. See 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(C)(i). The error was apparently noted at Mistry’s hearing in 2007, as the document in its current form has a line striking out the inadmissibility statute, with the correct statute handwritten above it.2 See 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(1)(A).3 On July 16, 2007, the Immigration Judge declared Mistry removable. Unhappy with that decision, Mistry consulted ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals