Opinion ID: 2975288
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: the order denying the motion to reopen

Text: Jaisinghani contends that the BIA erroneously denied his motion to reopen his appeal. In support of his motion, he argued that he switched counsel during the pending appeal and that his new counsel never submitted a brief. He also claimed that neither substitute nor his original counsel received a copy of the BIA’s order dismissing his appeal. Finally, he argues that he is 2 entitled to relief because his wife was undergoing naturalization proceedings. This court “review[s] the Board's denial of a motion to reopen deportation proceedings for abuse of discretion.” Ashki v. I.N.S., 233 F.3d 913, 917 (6th Cir. 2000). In denying the motion, the BIA found that all correspondence had been sent to counsel of record (who continues to represent Jaisinghani) at the address provided, and that there is no indication that that attorney attempted to withdraw or that another attorney entered an appearance. The findings are undisputed and, in any event, Jaisinghani’s failure to receive the BIA’s dismissal order could not be a ground for reversing the dismissal based on his failure to file a brief. Further, that Jaisinghani’s wife was in naturalization proceedings is not a ground for reopening. As the BIA stated, “A motion to reopen will not be a granted unless the alien establishes a prima facie case of eligibility for the underlying relief sought.” See Yousif v. I.N.S., 794 F.2d 236, 241 (6th Cir. 1986) (“[A] motion to reopen should not be granted unless the petitioner makes a prima facie showing that the statutory requirements for the underlying relief have been met.”). The Board found that reopening was not warranted because Jaisinghani failed to show that an immigrant visa was immediately available to him, as his wife’s naturalization proceedings were still pending. See 8 C.F.R. § 1245.1, stating: Any alien who is physically present in the United States . . . may apply for adjustment of status to that of a lawful permanent resident of the United States if the applicant is eligible to receive an immigrant visa and an immigrant visa is immediately available at the time of filing of the application. 8 C.F.R. § 1245.1(a). Finally, we reject Jaisinghani’s claim that the denial of the motion to reopen denied him due process. An alien does not have a constitutionally protected interest in receiving 3 discretionary relief from removal. See De Araujo v. Gonzales, 457 F.3d 146, 154 (1st Cir. 2006). We conclude that the BIA did not abuse its discretion.