NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION To be cited only in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit Chicago, Illinois 60604 Submitted January 24, 2018 * Decided May 4, 2018 Before WILLIAM J. BAUER, Circuit Judge MICHAEL S. KANNE, Circuit Judge AMY C. BARRETT, Circuit Judge No. 16-3720 WEIHUA QU, Petition for Review of an Order of the Petitioner, Board of Immigration Appeals. v. No. A205-949-618 JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS, III, Attorney General of the United States, Respondent. ORDER Weihua Qu, a 39-year-old Chinese national, applied for asylum in 2013 after overstaying a visitor visa. The immigration judge assigned her a hearing date in 2016. Qu’s hearing, however, was moved up to October 2014, and the immigration court mailed a new hearing notice to her attorney at the correct business address. But neither *The case was set for oral argument on January 24, but the argument was vacated that day. The case was submitted for decision on the briefs and administrative record to the panel hearing oral argument on January 24, 2018. See FED. R. APP. P. 34(a)(2)(C). No. 16-3720 Page 2 Qu nor her attorney appeared at the hearing, and the IJ ordered Qu removed in absentia. When Qu learned of this, she filed a motion to reopen the proceedings, asserting that her attorney never advised her about the rescheduled hearing. The IJ denied that motion, and then a short time later, Qu’s motion to reconsider, which argued that the lawyer never received notice. The Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed. We deny Qu’s petition for review. I. Background Qu entered the United States as a nonimmigrant visitor with permission to remain until April 27, 2013. The Department of Homeland Security sent Qu a Notice to Appear in June 2013, charging her as removable because she stayed longer than permitted, see 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(1)(B). At the first hearing, held in July 2013, DHS initiated removal proceedings; Qu conceded removability. But Qu, represented by Roxolana Harasymiw, applied for asylum because she claimed that she had been persecuted by the Chinese government for violating its one-child policy and that the government’s persecution would continue if she returned. The IJ scheduled an asylum hearing for Qu on August 25, 2016, and Harasymiw signed the hearing notice in court on Qu’s behalf. The immigration court mailed an amended hearing notice to Harasymiw at her work address—150 S. Wacker Dr., Suite 650, Chicago, IL, 60606 (which Qu concedes was the correct address). The notice gave a new hearing date—October 22, 2014—that was 17 months earlier than the originally scheduled hearing date. There is no evidence in the record that this notice was returned undelivered. Qu and Harasymiw failed to appear at this rescheduled hearing, and the IJ ordered Qu removed in absentia. This decision was also mailed to Harasymiw at the Wacker Drive address. Some months later Qu filed an application for employment authorization, but it was denied in May 2015 because the immigration court had denied her applications for ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals