FI LED U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT June 15, 2007 T HOM AS K. KAHN CL E RK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 06- 15520 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ B I A N o. A 73- 761- 385 K A M L E S H K A N T I B H A I
- P A T E L , P e titio n e r , v ersu s U .S . A T T O RN E Y G E N E R A L , R e s p o n d e n t.

________________________ P e t i t i on f orR e vi e w of

aD e c i s i on of

the B o a r d o f I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls

_________________________ ( Ju n e 15, 2007) B efo re T JO F L A T , B A R K E T T , an d H U L L , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: K a m l e s h K a nt i bha i
- P a t e l ( “ P a t e l ” ) , thr ough c ouns e l , pe t i t i ons f orr e vi e w of th e B o a r d o f

I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a l’s ( “ B I A ” ) d e n ia l o f h is m o tio n to r e o p e n h is
re m ov al proceedi ng s and i t s deni al of hi s m ot i on for r ec on si dera t i on . O n D ec em ber2

19, 1995, the I m m i gr a t i on a nd N a tur a l i z a t i on S e rvi c e ( “ I N S ” ) i s s ue d P a t e l , ana t i ve
a nd c i t i z e n o f I n d i a , a n o r d e r t o s h o w c au s e ( “ O SC” ) a s t o w h y h e s h o u l d n o tbe d e p o rt e d a s a n a l i e n w h o e n t e r e d the U n i t e d St a t e s w i th o u ti n s p e c t i o n . Th e O SC,
w h ic h w a s r e a d to P a te l in H in d u , s ta te d th a t, if h e w a s o r d e r e d d e p o rte d in
abs e nt i a , he co u l d m o v e t o r e ope n a ta nyt i m e i f he c oul d s how tha the “ di d not
r e c e iv e w r itte n n o tic e o f [ h is ] h e a r in g a n d [ h e ] p r o v id e d c h a n g e s o f [ h is ] a d d r e s s .” P a t e l not i f

i e d the I N S tha thi s addr e s s w a s : 301 N
. C e ntr a l A ve . , N o. 207, H ap e v ille , G e o r g ia , 3 0 3 5 4 . O n J u ly1 1 , 1 9 9 6 , an o tic e w a s s e n t to P a te l th a t h is hear i ng w as sc hedu l ed for S ept em ber 18, 19 96 , al tho ug h the envel op e w as
a ddr e s s e d “ H ape rvi l l e , ” i ns t e a d of H ape vi l l e . A r e gi s t e r e d m a i l r e c e i ptr e c e i ve d by the i m m i gr a t i on c ourti ndi c a t e d tha tanot i c e w a s r e c ei v ed b y a R u th T a nne ra t301 N
. C ent er al A ve. , N o. 20 7, “ H apervi l l e, ” G eorg ia, a n d thi s not i ce w as dat ed as d e liv e r e d o n J u ly 1 3 , 1 9 9 7 , a lth o u g h th e r e tu rn r e c e ip t w a s s ta m p e d a s f i l e d w ith the Im m i grat i on C ou rton Jul y 15, 19 96
. A n Im m i grat i on Judg e ( “ IJ ”) o rd ered P a t e l de port e d i n abs e nt i aon S e pt e m be r 1 8 , 1996, a nd a tt a c he d t o the de port a t i on
or d erw as a “ re cord of depo rt abl e a l i en, ” w hi ch st at ed thatal l form s w er e tr a n s la te d in to H in d u b y a n in te rp r e te rf o rP a te l. O n A ugus t22, 2005, P a t e l f i l e d am ot i on t o r e ope n hi s de p o rt a t i on pr oc e e di ngs , a r gui ng tha t : ( 1) he ne ve rr e c e i ve d not i c e of hi s de port a t i on he a r i ng; (2) he s peaks G uj ar at i , no tH i nd u; and (3) he w as elig ib le t o adj usthi s s t atus t o that3

of a l aw ful perm anentre si dentdu e t o h i s m arri age t o a U
. S
. ci t izen . T he IJdeni ed P at el ’ s m ot i on t o reopen, fi nd in g th at: (1 ) ano t i ce of heari ng w as se ntt o P at el , at the a dd r e s s tha the pr ov i de d, on J ul y11 , 19 96 ; ( 2) the r e gi s t e r e d ma i l r e c e i ptf orm f orthi s not i c e w a s r e c e i ve d by the I m m i gr a t i on C ourton J ul y 1 5 , 1 9 96; ( 3) the
e nve l ope c ont a i ni ng the not i c e ha d be e n ope ne d a nd the n r e turne d t o the I m m i gr a t i on C ourt , m a rke d a s “ R e turne d t o S en d er n otD e l a s A ddr e s s e d” ; a nd ( 4) al th o u gh the da t e of de l i ve ry of the not i c e w a s l i s t e d a s J ul y 13, 1997, “ [ t ] hi s [w as]
c l e a r l y a n e rr ori na s m uc h a s the re c e i ptnot i c e w a s r e turne d t o a nd r e c e i ve d by the C ou rton Jul y 15, 19 96
. ” I tal so n o ted th at: (1) the O S C w as se rved on P at el pe r s ona l l y , a nd i nc l ude d the c on seque nc e s of f a i l i ng t o appe a ra thi s he a r i ng; ( 2) P a t e l di d notc l a i m tha the c oul d nots pe a k or u n d erst a nd H i ndu, a nd

“ E thol ogue . c om ” r e port e d tha tG uj a r a t i a nd H i ndu “ s ha r e the s a m e l a ngua ge
r oot s , ” s uc h tha t“ [ t ] h ere [w a s ] nothi ng of r e c or d t o i ndi c a t e tha tthe onl yl a ngua ge [ P a t e l ] s poke and unde r s t ood w a s G uj a r a t i ” ; a nd ( 3) the r e i s no “ H ape rvi l l e , ” but
o n lya“H ap e v ille ,” in G e o r g ia
. B I A a f f i rm e d thi s d eci si o n on S e pt e m be r25, 2006, a nd, on O c t obe r18, 2006, P a t e l f

i l e d ape t i t i on f

orr e vi e w be f

or e us . O n O c t obe r24, 2006, P at e l f i l e d a
m ot i on t o r e c ons i de r w i th the B I A , a r gui ng tha t he w a s e l i gi bl e t o a dj u sth i s s t a tus to th a t o f ala w f u l p e rm a n e n t r e s id e n t, a n d th e B I A d e n ie d th is m o tio n . W e r e vi e w the B I A ’ s de ni a l of am ot i on t o r e ope n f

ora n abus e of

di s c r e t i on.4

M ej i a-R o d r i gue z v. R e no, 178 F
. 3d 1139, 1145 ( 11th C i r . 1999)
. T he di s c r e t i on
a f fo rd ed t o th e B I A unde r8 C
. F
. R
. § 1003. 2( a ) w i th r e s pe c tt o gr a nt i ng a nd de ny i ng m ot i ons t o r e ope n i s e xpa ns i ve . S e e A ni n v. R e no, 188 F
. 3d 1273, 12 79 (11th C i r. 19 99 ) ( prov i di ng thatthe re gu l at i on gi ves the B IA disc re ti o n t o reopen pr o ce ed i ng s “ as i tse es fi t ”)
. S peci fi ca l l y, the prov i si on prov i des that“ [t ] he B oard h a s d is c r e tio n to d e n y am o tio n to r e o p e n e v e n if th e p a rty m o v i n g h a s m a d e o u t a p r i m a f a c ie c a s e f

o rr e lie f .” 8 C .F .R . § 1 0 0 3 .2 ( a ) . J u d ic ia l r e v ie w is lim ite d to de t e rm i ni ng “ w he the rthe r e ha s be e n a n e xe r c i s e of a dm i ni s tr a t i ve d i scret i on a nd
w he the rthe m a tt e rof

e xe r c i s e ha s be e n a rbi tr a ryorc apri ci ous . ” G a r c i a - M i rv. S m i th, 76 6 F. 2d14 78 , 14 90 ( 11 th Ci r . 19 85 ) ( i nt e rna l qu ot a t i on omi tt e d)
. F urthe rm or e , m ot i ons t o r e ope n a r e di sfav or e d i n r e m ova l pr oc e e di ngs . I N S v. D o h e rty , 5 0 2 U .S . 3 1 4 , 3 2 3 , 1 1 2 S .C t. 7 1 9 , 7 2 4 , 1 1 6 L .E d .2 d 8 2 3 ( 1 9 9 2 )
. T he Im m i grat i on and N atural i za t i on A ct(“ IN A ”) p ro vi des thatany a l i en
w ho , af t erre ce i vi ng w ri tt en no t i ce , d o es n o t a tt end a proceedi ng shal l be ordered
r e m ove d i n abs e nt i ai f

the I N S e s t abl i s h es b y “ c l e a r , une qui voc a l , a nd c onvi nc i ng evi dence” that : (1) i tgave w ri tt en no ti ce o f th e procee di ng s; and (2) the al i en w as
r e m o v ab le . I N A § 2 4 0 ( b ) ( 5 ) ( A ) , 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 2 9 a ( b ) ( 5 ) ( A )
. A n in ab s e n tia
r e m ova l or de rm a y be r e s c i nde d i f a n a l i e n f

i l e s am ot i o n t o reope n the pr oc e e di ngs
e i the r : ( 1) w i thi n 180 da y s a f t e rthe or de rof

r e m ova l ; or( 2) i f

, a t a ny t i m e, the al i en dem on stra tes thathe di d n otre ce i ve prop erno t i ce of the re m ov al5

p r o c e e d in g s . I N A § 2 4 0 ( b ) ( 5 ) ( C ) ; 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 2 9 a ( b ) ( 5 ) ( C ) . “S e rv ic e b ym a il . . . sh al l be s uf

f i c i e nti f the r e i s pr oof

of a tt e m pt e d de l i ve ryt o the l a s ta ddr ess pr ov i d e d b y th e a l i e n . . . ” I N A § 2 4 0 ( c ) ; 8 U
. S. C. § 1 2 2 9 ( c ) ; 8 C. F. R. § 1003. 23( b) ( 4) ( i i )
. I n r e vi e w i ng am ot i o n t o reo p e n w he r e a n a l i e n a l l e ge s l a c k of not i c e , ourr e vi e w i s l i m i t e d t o: (1 ) “ th e va l i di tyof the not i c e pr ovi de d t o the
a l i e n” ; ( 2) “ the r e a s ons fo r the a l i e n’ s nota tt e ndi ng the pr oc e e di ng” ; a nd (3 ) “w h eth ero r n o t th e a li en is r e m o v ab le.” C o n trer as -R o d rig u ez v . U .S . A tt ’y G e n . , 4 6 2 F. 3 d 1 3 1 4 , 1 3 1 7 ( 11th Ci r . 2 0 0 6 ) ( c i t i n g I N A § 2 4 0 ( b ) ( 5 ) ( D ) ; 8 U
. S. C. § 1 2 2 9 a ( b ) ( 5 ) ( D ) )
. F urtherm ore, atthe t im e w hen P at el w as ordered deport ed, the IN A prov i ded th a t: A n y a lie n a g a in s t w h o m af in a l o r d e ro f

d e p o rta tio n [ w a s ] e n te r e d in ab sen t i a . . . a nd, w ho .
. . w a s pr ovi de d or a l not i c e , e i the ri n the al i en ’ s n at i v e l an g u ag e o r i n an o th er l an g u ag e th e al i en u n d erst an d s, o f th e tim e a n d p la c e o f

th e p r o c e e d in g s a n d o f th e c o n s e q u e n c e s . . . of fa i l i ng . . . t o att en d a p ro ce edi ng . . . shal l no tbe el i gi bl e f or re l i ef

. . . for aperi od of 5 years af t erthe dat e of the entryof th e fi nal order o f d e p o rta tio n . I N A § 2 4 2 B ( e ) ( 1 ) ( 1 9 9 6 ) ; 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 5 2 b ( e ) ( 1 ) ( 1 9 9 6 )
. T he B IA di d n otabuse i t s di sc re t i on by denyi ng P at el ’s m o ti o n to re op en be c aus e the r e c or d su p p o rt s the c onc l us i ons tha t : ( 1) de l i ve ryof the not i c e of hear i ng w as m ade a tthe l as taddres s provi ded b y P at el b ef o re he w as ordered de p ort e d; a nd ( 2) P a t e l ha d be e n w a rne d or a l l y , i n al a ngua ge tha the unde r s t ood,6

o f th e c o n s e q u e n c e s o f

f a i l i n g t o a tt e n d h i s d e p o rt a t i o n h e a r i n g . Ac c o r d i n g l y , we d e n y th is p o rtio n o f

th e p e titio n f

o rr e v ie w . P a te l’s n e x t a r g u m e n t o n ap p e a l is th a t th e I Jf a ile d to c o n s id e rh is
appl i c a t i o n t o a dj us thi s s t a tus t o tha tof al a w f ul pe rm a ne ntr e s i de nt , w hi c h he
r a is e d in h is m o tio n to r e c o n s id e rb e f o r e th e B I A
. B y s t a tut e , a n a l i e n s e e ki ng r e vi e w of af i na l or de rof

the B I A m u st fi l e d a p e t i t i o n f

o rr e v i e w w i th i n 3 0 d a y s o f th e i s s u a n c e o f

th e f i n a l o r d e r . I NA § 2 42 (b)( 1); 8 U
. S
. C
. § 1 25 2(b)(1). T he S up re m e C ou rthas s t at ed th at , w here a
m o tio n to r e c o n s id e ris d e n ie d , “th e p e titio n e rw o u l d f ile as e p a r a te p e titio n to
r e vi e w tha ts e c ond f

i na l or de r . ” S t one v. I N S , 514 U
. S
. 386, 395, 115 S
. C t . 1537, 15 44 , 13 1 L
. E d. 2d 46 5 (19 95 ). W e have h eld th atan express desi gn at i on of an order appeal ed fr om i nf ers the l ac k o f i nt entt o app ea l an un m ent i on ed order. O s t e rne c k v. E
. T
. B a rw i c k I ndus
. , I nc . , , 825 F
. 2d 1521, 1529 (1 1 th C i r . 1987) ( s e c u r itie s c o n te x t)
. W e d o n o t h av e ju risd ic tio n to re v iew th e B IA ’s d ec isio n d en yin g P atel’s
m ot i on f orr e c ons i de r a t i on b ecau se hi s pe t i t i on f orr e vi e w onl yr e f

e r e nc e s the B I A ’ s de n i al o f hi s m ot i on t o r e ope n, a nd he di d notf i l e as e pa r a t e pe t i t i on f or
r e vi e w of

the de ni a l of

the m ot i on t o r e c ons i de r . A c c or d i n g l y, w e de nythe pe t i t i on in p a rt, a n d d is m is s it in p a rt. D EN I ED I N PA R T, D I SM I SSED I N PA R T.7