Case: 18-12575 Date Filed: 08/01/2019 Page: 1 of 10 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 18-12575 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ Agency No. A070-857-489 CHIUNG HSIA CHANG, Petitioner, versus U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. ________________________ Petition for Review of a Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals ________________________ (August 1, 2019) Before JILL PRYOR, BRANCH, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: More than twenty years after receiving an in absentia removal order, Chiung Chang seeks review of the order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) that Case: 18-12575 Date Filed: 08/01/2019 Page: 2 of 10 denied her third untimely motion to reopen deportation proceedings and rescind the removal order. Chang, proceeding through her third attorney, argues that the BIA abused its discretion when it denied her motion because she is entitled to equitable tolling of the filing deadline based on her due diligence and her prior attorneys’ ineffective assistance of counsel. As we approach the twenty-third anniversary of Chang’s in absentia deportation order, it is only appropriate that we begin this opinion by reaffirming the following legal principle: “Motions for reopening of immigration proceedings are disfavored . . . .” INS v. Doherty, 502 U.S. 314, 323 (1992). We reiterate that “[t]his is especially true in a deportation proceeding, where, as a general matter, every delay works to the advantage of the deportable alien who wishes merely to remain in the United States.” Id. For the reasons that follow, we deny Chang’s petition for review. I. FACTS Chang is a native and citizen of Taiwan who was admitted into the United States on September 1, 1992, as a non-immigrant visitor with authorization to remain in the country until February 28, 1993. In August 1993, the former Immigration and Naturalization Service issued an Order to Show Cause charging Chang as deportable for overstaying her visitor’s visa and failing to comply with the conditions of her visitor’s visa. 2 Case: 18-12575 Date Filed: 08/01/2019 Page: 3 of 10 The Immigration Judge (IJ) scheduled a hearing for January 21, 1994, and sent notice to Chang and her first attorney, Brij Kapoor. Chang failed to appear at her deportation hearing and was ordered in absentia deported to Taiwan. On February 17, 1994, Chang filed a motion to reopen, claiming that neither she nor Kapoor had received notice of the January 21, 1994, deportation hearing. Chang conceded deportability and requested a voluntary departure period of 30 days. On May 12, 1994, the IJ denied Chang’s motion to reopen. Chang appealed the decision to the BIA, and the BIA reversed and remanded the IJ’s decision. An immigration court hearing was scheduled for May 14, 1996, and notice was sent to Chang and Kapoor. Although Chang failed to appear at the scheduled hearing, Kapoor appeared on her behalf and sought a continuance. The IJ rescheduled the hearing for July 10, 1996, but Chang again failed to appear at the rescheduled hearing. Kapoor was present. The IJ ordered Chang deported ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals