Case: 20-60714 Document: 00516097823 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/17/2021 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED November 17, 2021 No. 20-60714 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Shahid Ashan Maradia, also known as Shahid Maredia, also known as Saiycdali Momin, Petitioner, versus Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent. Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals BIA No. A075 006 387 Before Jolly, Haynes, and Oldham, Circuit Judges. 1 Haynes, Circuit Judge: Shahid Ashan Maradia, a native and citizen of India, was ordered to be deported in absentia in 1996 by an immigration judge (“IJ”), but he was not actually deported. Since then, Maradia twice unsuccessfully moved to reopen his immigration proceedings. Maradia petitioned our court for review 1 Judge Oldham concurs in the judgment only. Case: 20-60714 Document: 00516097823 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/17/2021 No. 20-60714 of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) that denied his second motion to reopen. We DENY his petition. I. Background In 1996, Maradia unlawfully entered the United States without inspection in violation of § 241(a)(1)(B) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1251(a)(1)(B) (1994). Shortly after, the then-Immigration and Naturalization Service 2 personally served Maradia with an Order to Show Cause and Notice of Hearing (the “OSC”) for entering the United States without inspection. The OSC listed Maradia’s address as a particular apartment on “Landend Street.” It further stated that the date, time, and location of the hearing would be sent to the listed address and that if he changed address, he “must report” the change to the immigration court. Maradia provided no change-of-address notice to the immigration court, so the court sent a notice with the date, time, and location of his hearing to the Landend address. Maradia did not appear at the hearing. Consequently, the IJ ordered Maradia be deported to India in absentia on August 6, 1996. Fifteen years later, in 2011, Maradia moved to reopen his immigration proceedings, arguing that he lacked notice of the deportation hearing. Specifically, Maradia argued that he had “moved from the Landend address” a month before the notice was sent. The IJ denied Maradia’s motion. Of relevance, it determined that Maradia had sufficient written notice because the notice was sent to his “last known address” as provided to the court and he “did not inform the Court of his change in address.” The 2 In 2003, the Immigration and Naturalization Service’s functions were transferred to the new Department of Homeland Security. See Gomez v. Gonzalez, 163 F. App’x 268, 269 n.2 (5th Cir. 2006) (per curiam). 2 Case: 20-60714 Document: 00516097823 Page: 3 Date Filed: 11/17/2021 No. 20-60714 BIA affirmed the IJ’s decision without an opinion, and Maradia did not file a petition for review. Another eight years later, in 2019, Maradia filed a second motion to reopen his immigration proceedings and stay deportation. As in his first motion to reopen, Maradia argued that he did not …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals