Case ID: f-appx_250/html/0590-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Fabrice K. SADHVANI, Petitioner, v. Peter D. KEISLER, Acting United States Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 07-1244.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: Sept. 28, 2007.
    Decided: Oct. 12, 2007.
    Paul Shearman Allen, Paul Shearman Allen & Associates, Washington, D.C.; Joseph Peter Drennan, Alexandria, Virginia, for Petitioner. Victor M. Lawrence, Senior Litigation Counsel, John P. Devaney, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
    Before MOTZ and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
    Petition granted and remanded by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
   PER CURIAM:

Fabrice K. Sadhvani, a native and citizen of Togo, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“Board”) vacating its previous grant of Sadhvani’s motion to reopen and considering the motion as withdrawn in light of his removal from the United States. In rendering its decision, the Board relied on 8 C.F.R. § 1008.2(d) (2007), which provides that “[a]ny departure from the United States, including the deportation or removal of a person who is the subject of exclusion, deportation, or removal proceedings, occurring after the filing of a motion to reopen or a motion to reconsider, shall constitute a withdrawal of such motion.”

We recently found this regulation to be invalid in William v. Gonzales, 499 F.3d 329 (4th Cir.2007). Accordingly, we grant the petition for review and remand to the Board for further proceedings in light of our holding in William. We grant Sadhvani’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION GRANTED AND REMANDED.