Source: https://judicialview.com/Court-Cases/Immigration/Patel-v-Holder/30/601958
Timestamp: 2019-01-17 16:54:06
Document Index: 128380809

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1227', '§ 1182', '§ 1182', '§ 241', '§ 1182', '§ 1229', '§ 1003', '§ 212', '§ 1003', '§ 212', '§ 1182', '§ 1229', '§ 1003', '§ 241', '§ 212', '§ 212', '§ 1227', '§ 1229', '§ 1229']

Judicial View > Federal Cases > Immigration > Patel v Holder
Home >> Federal Cases >> Immigration >> Patel v Holder
Jyotsnaben and Pravin Patel petition for review of a denial by the Board of Immigration Appeals of their motion to reopen their removal proceedings. The Patels moved to reopen more than nine years after the Board had dismissed their earlier appeal of an immigration judge’s denial of their applications for asylum and other relief from removal. Because their motion to reopen was untimely, we deny the petition.
Jyotsnaben Patel was admitted to the United States in December 1992 as a nonimmigrant visitor; her husband, Pravin Patel, entered nearly six months later but was neither admitted nor paroled. They applied for asylum and both were charged with removability: Mrs. Patel because she had overstayed her visa, see 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(1)(B), and Mr. Patel because he had entered the country illegally, see 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(A)(I). Their cases were consolidated, and the Patels testified before an immigration judge in support of their applications for asylum, but the judge found their allegations not credible, denied their applications, and granted them voluntary departure by the end of September 2002. The Patels failed to comply with the order for voluntary departure; their failure rendered them inadmissible for ten years. See 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(9)(A)(ii); Dada v. Mukasey, 554 U.S. 1, 12 (2008); Hadayat v. Gonzales, 458 F.3d 659, 664 (7th Cir. 2006). The Patels appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals, but they filed no brief. With no brief on file, the Board summarily dismissed their appeal in March 2004 and ordered the Patels to leave the United States within thirty days.
The Patels did not comply with the Board’s order to leave the country. Still in the United States seven years later, in July 2011 they filed an I-246 application to stay their removal. That application sought from the government a discretionary stay of removal for humanitarian reasons. See 8 C.F.R. §§ 241.6 and 212.5. Immigration and Customs Enforcement granted their application in August 2012, permitting the Patels to remain in the country for one more year so that they could apply for adjustment of status or prepare to leave the United States.
remain in the country for one more year so that they could administrative closure, see in re immigration petitions for review reopen sua sponte. see shah v. holder, 736 f.3d 1125, 1126 * even if the recent administrative changes were exceptions their application in august 2012, permitting the patels to levels. the board is not empowered to exercise prosecutorial require that we dismiss this appeal so that the justice depart- states. tively. without administrative closure, the patels would in their petition in this court for review of that order, the agency again refused. second, after the agency refused the waivers may lawfully return to the united states after travel- in its order the next month, the board denied the patels’ f.3d 659, 664 (7th cir. 2006). the patels appealed to the board those procedures would not help the patels. even under the patels argue that the board abused its discretion in denying could then travel abroad to apply for an immigrant visa to sponte. but we do not review the board’s decisions not to 2 no. 13-2442 terms of that memo, they believe that they are now eligible for with removability: mrs. patel because she had overstayed her customs enforcement a favorable exercise of prosecutorial set forth by the second circuit.” these procedures would no. 13-2442 5 of immigration appeals, but they filed no brief. with no brief (7th cir. 2013); anaya–aguilar v. holder, 683 f.3d 369, 372–73 161 (2d cir. 2012), and the government has repeatedly refused ing abroad to obtain immigrant visas. see 8 c.f.r. filedalmostnineyearstoo late.thestatute providesexceptions moved to reopen more than nine years after the board had consider adopting the second circuit’s procedures because and quest for lawful status. to the 90-day deadline. the board thus acted properly in asylum, but the judge found their allegations not credible, would not consent to close the proceedings administratively, 4 no. 13-2442 rights or benefits enforceable at law. finally, the patels have professed purpose of their motion to reopen. therefore, far denied their applications, and granted them voluntary depar- board of immigration appeals. 2011 they filed an i-246 application to stay their removal. that the northern district of illinois, sitting by designation. the memorandum explicitly states that it does not create any on file, the board summarily dismissed their appeal in march the country. still in the united states seven years later, in july second circuit’s procedures, the government must consent to that the board should have considered a recent internal us (nor did they argue to the board) that any of these excep- them inadmissible for ten years. see 8 u.s.c. § 1182(a)(9)(a)(ii); thirty days. because their motion to reopen was untimely, we deny the § 1229a(c)(7); 8 c.f.r. § 1003.2(c)(2), the patels did not assert the patels offer two replies, but both are unavailing. first, rovner, circuit judge. jyotsnaben and pravin patel petition and 212.5. immigration and customs enforcement granted v. holder, 737 f.3d 1181, 1185 (7th cir. 2013). also, government 2012). here, the board did not abuse its discretion. states, that describes its updated prosecutorial priorities. under the § 212.7(e)(4)(v) (effective march 2013). second, the patels insist their motion to reopen their removal proceedings. the patels t h e ir c a s e . s e e h t t p : / / w w w. ic e . g o v / d o c l ib / case as a favorable exercise of prosecutorial discretion, follow- an exercise of prosecutorial discretion that favors reopening of their applications for asylum and other relief from removal. v. (7th cir. 2013); marino v. holder, 687 f.3d 365, 368 (7th cir. dada v. mukasey, 554 u.s. 1, 12 (2008); hadayat v. gonzales, 458 for review is denied. tions apply. instead, they cite to the recent administrative patel, entered nearly six months later but was neither admitted ing the advice in the memorandum from immigration and proceedings in may 2013. their request came more than nine (7th cir. 2012). second, they insist that, despite the untimeli- § 1003.2(c)(2). the patels do not dispute that their motion was removal “without requiring the agency and courts to devote nos. a073-578-087, a070-908-828. remainineligible for provisional waivers of inadmissibility, the argument, the patels again sought from immigration and decisions about prosecutorial discretion in immigration resources to the matter.” alimi v. ashcroft, 391 f.3d 888, 892 respondent. that they fell within any exception to the 90-day deadline, and ness of their motion, the board should have reopened their we review the board’s denial of a motion to reopen for discretion to consent to reopening their proceedings, and the petition to review an order of the eric h. holder, jr., missibility on the basis of their u.s.-citizen daughter. on which the patels rely are not included among the exceptions petition. motion, the board should have reopened the proceedings sua for review of a denial by the board of immigration appeals of motion to reopen. it explained that the motion was filed after the 90-day period for motions to reopen, see 8 u.s.c. impermissible basis. reyes-cornejo v. holder, 734 f.3d 636, 647 ments after oral arguments require brief comment. first, after return legally to the united states. see id. § 212.7(e)(3)(vi). the from being required, reopening the patels’ cases would have years after the board had ordered their removal but within a united states court of appeals move to reopen within ninety days of the final administrative jyotsnaben patel, december1992asanonimmigrant visitor;her husband,pravin never explained how a favorable exercise of discretion is the their cases were consolidated, and the patels testified before for the seventh circuit stay from removal, the patels conclude that, for the sake of entered the country illegally, see 8 u.s.c. § 1182(a)(6)(a)(i). ment could seek administrative closure. this is not the case to 2004 and ordered the patels to leave the united states within to the 90-day deadline, the board’s refusal to reopen based on argued december 6, 2013 — decided april 1, 2014 § 1229a(c)(7)(c)(i); 8 c.f.r. § 1003.2(c)(3). memorandum from immigration and customs enforcement first, analienseeking the reliefof reopening generally must department of homeland security opposed their motion to patels’ request, they responded in our court with a “stipula- denying the motion as untimely. see 8 u.s.c. secure-communities/pdf/prosecutorial-discretion-memo.pdf departure in 2002, the purpose of which was to facilitate of removal for humanitarian reasons. see 8 c.f.r. §§ 241.6 reopen so they can ask the government to consent to adminis- that it would not consent to close the proceedings administra- before kanne and rovner, circuit judges, and durkin, reopen, asserting that it was filed too late and no exception to regulatory changes last year under which aliens granted seek provisional waivers of inadmissibility. they cite to see 8 c.f.r. § 212.7(e). with the waiver in hand, the patels even if the board reopened the proceedings, the government last two years that, they believe, justify reopening their case. in the pending in u.s. court of appeals for second circuit, 702 f.3d 160, an immigration judge in support of their applications for declining to reopen the patels’ proceedings, and their petition (7th cir. 2004). warrant reopening sua sponte. to the ninety-day limit, such as a change in country conditions, consular processing overseas. see 8 c.f.r. § 212.7(e)(3). but in visa, see 8 u.s.c. § 1227(a)(1)(b), and mr. patel because he had instead of seeking to adjust status (no application is in the strategy. the patels sought to reopen the removal proceedings nor paroled. they applied for asylum and both were charged application sought from the government a discretionary stay the filing deadline applied. moreover, the department said, the honorable thomas m. durkin, of the united states district court for prosecutorial discretion to permit them to reopen their pro- decision of removal. 8 u.s.c. § 1229a(c)(7)(c)(i); 8 c.f.r. the patels did not comply with the board’s order to leave changes. but regulatory or administrative changes like those so we must deny the petition for review, but two develop- been pointless. trative closure, which would allow the patels to pursue a waiver of inadmissibility and immigrant visas through abuse of discretion, and we will uphold its decision unless it record), the patels moved the board to reopen their removal petitioners, dismissed their earlier appeal of an immigration judge’s denial proper reward for their decision to flout the grant of voluntary they did not establish an extraordinary situation that would 6 no. 13-2442 believed, they could seek a provisional waiver of their inad- to do so. ceedings. exercised its discretion to grant the patels an administrative tion” asking that we adopt certain “procedures and standards pravin baldevbhai patel and year of the stay order. the request also reflected a complicated thus eliminating the patels’ eligibility for a provisional waiver their motion to reopen. they contend that the board ignored no. 13-2442 attorney general of the united enforcement are not subject to judicial review. id. moreover, district judge.* consistency, the board should have extended favorable see 8 u.s.c. § 1229a(c)(7)(c)(ii), but the patels do not argue to opposing the motion to reopen, the government emphasized accordingly, the board did not abuse its discretion in them would not be an abuse of discretion. the patels seek to so that they could ask the government to consent to have those no. 13-2442 7 jyotsnaben patel was admitted to the united states in with the order for voluntary departure; their failure rendered two administrative changes to immigration enforcement in the customs enforcement. this contention is flawed on several (last visited march 21, 2014). since the government in 2012 proceedings administratively closed. once closed, the patels first, the patels repeat that if their cases are reopened, they can no. 13-2442 3 was made without a rational explanation or rested on an discretion in agency enforcement of immigration laws. see kim ture by the end of september 2002. the patels failed to comply they argue that, even if the board properly denied their apply for adjustment of status or prepare to leave the united