NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT _____________ No. 20-2018 _____________ YOGINI SHANTI BHAI PATEL, Petitioner v. ATTORNEY GENERAL UNITED STATES OF AMERICA _______________ On Petition for Review of an Order of the United States Department of Justice Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA A206-021-818) Immigration Judge: Annie S. Garcy _______________ Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) January 28, 2021 Before: JORDAN, MATEY, Circuit Judges, and BOLTON, *District Judge. (Filed: January 29, 2021) _______________ OPINION** _______________ * The Honorable Susan Bolton, Senior United States District Judge for the District of Arizona, sitting by designation. ** 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. Yogini Patel seeks review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) affirming the denial of her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In addition, she argues that the denial of her motion to substitute counsel violated her right to due process. We will deny her petition. I. BACKGROUND Patel is a twenty-eight-year-old citizen of India. She fled India due to alleged abuse by her father and entered the United States without admission or inspection in 2013. Officials with Immigration and Customs Enforcement detained her and served her with a Notice to Appear before releasing her on her own recognizance. Patel retained Attorney Cindy Ramjattan-Paul in November of 2014, who promptly entered her appearance in the Newark, New Jersey immigration court. Although Patel’s hearing was originally scheduled for September 29, 2015, an immigration judge (“IJ”) granted Patel’s motion for an adjournment due to pregnancy. On February 16, 2016, Ramjattan-Paul represented Patel at a conference during which the IJ set another date for a merits hearing, this one to take place more than two years later, on April 18, 2018. On that same day in February 2016, Ramjattan-Paul filed an application on behalf of Patel for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the CAT. Patel did not attend the February conference because she had given birth to her daughter ten days before. 2 Patel moved to Illinois on April 1, 2018, shortly before her rescheduled merits hearing in Newark. Also just before her move, Patel hired Attorney Mike Sethi to represent her in her immigration proceedings. Sethi promptly filed motions to substitute counsel, to continue the merits hearing, to change the venue of the case to Illinois, and for leave to appear by telephone. The motion to change venue asserted that Patel would be prejudiced by proceedings in Newark because she had witnesses residing in Illinois who would not travel to New Jersey for the hearing. The IJ denied the motion to substitute counsel because it was filed without proof of service on Ramjattan-Paul. The IJ also noted that none of the motions explained why Patel moved to Illinois or why she had waited until the last moment to try to switch attorneys. Sethi then refiled the motions with ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals