NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ___________ No. 17-3212 ___________ SHAILESHKUMAR V. PATEL, Petitioner v. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent ____________________________________ On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Agency No. A205-409-640) Immigration Judge: John B. Carle ____________________________________ Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) May 25, 2018 Before: McKEE, SHWARTZ, and NYGAARD, Circuit Judges (Opinion filed: August 2, 2018) ___________ OPINION* __________ NYGAARD, Circuit Judge. * This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent. Shaileshkumar Patel petitions us to review the Board of Immigration Appeals’ decision to deny his motion to reopen.1 The Immigration Judge entered a removal order in abstentia, but Patel claims he did not receive notice of the hearing at which this occurred. On this basis, he argues the denial of his motion to reopen was improper. We will deny the petition. The Immigration Judge ordered Patel’s removal in abstentia on April 15, 2013. Patel filed a Motion To Reopen on February 24, 2017, arguing that failing to receive notice of the hearing is an exceptional circumstance justifying rescission of the Removal Order. 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(5)(C)((i). But the four-year gap between the date of the removal order and Patel’s motion—far in excess of the maximum of 180 days allowed in the statute—precludes reopening proceedings under that provision. His petition also can be read as relying on section (ii) of the same statute, which applies “if the alien did not receive notice in accordance with paragraph (1) or (2) of section 1229(a) of this title . . . and the failure to appear was through no fault of the alien.” § 1229a(b)(5)(C)((ii). However, even under section (ii), he fails to provide enough evidence to grant his motion. The record shows that Patel appeared at the Nogales, Arizona port of entry on November 12, 2012. He did not have valid entry documents and the Department of Homeland Security took him into custody, detaining him at Eloy, Arizona. He requested asylum at the time and, on February 11, 2013, the Department determined that he had a 1 The Board issued a decision without an opinion. Therefore, our review encompasses the Immigration Judge’s opinion supporting the removal order. Dia v. Ashcroft, 353 F.3d 228, 245 (3d Cir. 2003) (en banc). 2 credible fear of torture. On February 12, 2013, he was served with a Notice to Appear (NTA). The NTA did not specify a date or time for the hearing. But it did state the consequences of failing to be at the hearing, and it informed him of his duty to notify the Government of any change of address. The Certificate of Service on the NTA indicates that this information was provided to him in person and was also delivered orally in his native language of Gujarati. He later received a Notice of Hearing, dated February 15, 2013, that informed him of a ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals