Opinion ID: 3033597
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Board’s Denial of the Motion to Reopen

Text: On September 9, 2003, the Board denied Bhasin’s motion to reopen. After reciting some of the basic facts contained within the motion and supporting affidavit, the Board provided the following analysis: We find that the respondent’s declaration is selfserving and that it is not highly probative in her case. By means of the current motion, which is unsup- ported by any documentation except for the respondent’s own declaration and a copy of our April 2003 decision, the respondent has failed to satisfy the heavy evidentiary burden relevant to reopening. See Matter of Coelho, supra. (emphasis added). The Board then went on to deny relief on a separate ground, namely the fugitive disentitlement doctrine: In addition, we find that denial of the motion to reopen is appropriate as a matter of discretion. . . . the respondent failed to appear for removal from the United States when she was ordered to report on July 16, 2003, which is substantiated by a notice in the file. We note that the respondent submitted the present motion on July 15, 2003, when her scheduled removal was imminent. Her failure to report in accordance with the removal order operated as a serious adverse discretionary factor warranting the BHASIN v. GONZALES 12047 denial of this motion. See Matter of Barocio, 19 I&N Dec. 255 (BIA 1985).