Opinion ID: 4388170
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Patel’s First Motion to Reopen

Text: Seventeen years later, Patel moved to reopen his removal proceedings, claiming that he had never received notice of the 1999 hearing. He also applied for asylum, attaching an unsworn statement and evidence of conditions in India. In his statement, Patel said that he belonged to India’s Congress Party. He claimed that he fled his country because of “threats, harassment and actual physical attacks by the opposition party, the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP).” AR 183. He also stated that his cousin in India belongs to the BJP and stole some properties from Patel’s brother. Patel’s brother has since passed away, leaving the right to the properties to Patel. So he fears that if he ever returns to India, his cousin will use his influence in the BJP to “target [him] and have [him] killed” to keep him from claiming the properties. AR 185. 2 Patel’s country-condition evidence consisted of articles describing political violence involving the BJP, the Congress Party, and others. The articles describe India’s conditions from 2012 to 2015. But they say nothing about India’s conditions in 1999. The immigration judge denied Patel’s motion to reopen. The Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed. The Board found that Patel had received notice of his 1999 hearing. And it said that Patel had made no “meaningful comparison” between conditions in India now and those in India “at the time of his [1999] hearing.” AR 93. So there was no basis to reopen. Patel moved for reconsideration, which the Board denied. But he never sought judicial review of these decisions.