Opinion ID: 3021241
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Validity of the Order of Removal

Text: Shabani’s second argument is that he was deprived of due process because the IJ’s mistakes of law prevented him from having a rehearing on the order of removal. Specifically, Shabani argues that he was deprived of proper notice of the rescheduling, and that he was prejudiced by the ineffective assistance of his counsel. As discussed in the previous section, supra, this argument lacks merit. Shabani also argues that the NTA was improper because it was based on information obtained from his asylum application, and therefore that the order of removal was invalid. Information provided in an asylum application filed on or after January 4, 1995, “may be used as a basis for the initiation of removal proceedings, or to satisfy any burden of proof in exclusion, deportation, or removal proceedings.” 8 C.F.R. § 1208.3(c)(1). In 7 its decision in this case, the BIA implicitly held that this provision means that asylum applications filed before January 4, 1995, cannot be used for that purpose. See Auguste v. Ridge, 395 F.3d 123, 150 (3d Cir. 2005) (“[T]he BIA’s interpretation and application of its own regulations is entitled to great deference.” (internal quotation marks omitted)). Shabani filed his asylum application in 1993. He argues that the INS must have used information from his asylum application to initiate removal proceedings because the NTA stated that he was an Albanian citizen, and no other document he filed stated that he was Albanian. The BIA addressed this claim, and concluded that Shabani had failed to demonstrate that the NTA was based on information from his asylum application. The BIA found that Shabani’s assertion was speculative because the INS could have relied on information from Shabani’s employment authorization application (Form I-765) or his brother’s adjustment of status application (Form I-130) filed on his behalf. There is substantial evidence to support the BIA’s finding. First, Shabani had an interview with the INS after he filed his asylum application, and he presumably related the same information that was given in his application. Second, the INS could have relied on the I-130 form submitted by his brother, as it would have stated Shabani's nationality, date and point of entry, and immigration status. Finally, the I-765 form also states Shabani’s nationality, date and point of entry, and immigration status. The submitted form lists his nationality as Yugoslavian instead of Albanian, but could have served as a basis to initiate removal proceedings because Shabani was removable regardless of his nationality. See 8 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(A)(i). Therefore, the BIA’s finding should not be disturbed. Accordingly, we reject Shabani’s due process argument.