Shah v. I.N.S., 84-2306
| Decision Date | 14 March 1986 |
| Docket Number | No. 84-2306,84-2306 |
| Citation | 788 F.2d 970 |
| Parties | Mohammad Saleem SHAH, Petitioner, v. IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE, Respondent. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit |
Edward N. Leavy on brief, for petitioner.
Richard K. Willard, Acting Asst. Atty. Gen., James A. Hunolt, Acting Asst. Director, Millicent Y. Clark, Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, D.C., on brief, for respondent.
Before WINTER, Chief Judge, and SPROUSE and CHAPMAN, Circuit Judges.
Mohammad Saleem Shah appeals the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals that the immigration judge acted properly in ordering him deported in absentia. Shah claims that his due process rights were violated. We disagree and affirm the Board of Immigration Appeals.
Shah is a citizen of Pakistan who entered the United States on January 29, 1983 without inspection by immigration officials. He was apprehended and placed in deportation proceedings. On March 22, 1983, Shah appeared at his deportation hearing in El Paso, Texas, but he was not represented by counsel. Shah was found to be deportable and was ordered deported to Pakistan.
Shah obtained the services of an attorney on March 30, 1983 and moved both to reopen the deportation proceedings and to apply for asylum. The immigration judge granted Shah's motion and reopened the deportation proceeding. In his order, the immigration judge warned that if, after proper notification, Shah failed to appear at his reopened proceeding, "any and all applications for relief from deportation shall be deemed abandoned." Through a second attorney, Shah moved for a change in his custody status pursuant to 8 C.F.R. Sec. 242.2(b), (c). By an order dated April 26, 1983, the immigration judge ordered Shah released under a $3,000 bond.
Upon his release, Shah moved to Alexandria, Virginia, to the home of a friend who had provided him with bond money. Acting through a third attorney, Shah filed a motion for change of venue to the District of Columbia on June 13, 1983, stating that he had taken up residence in Alexandria. On October 13, 1983, Shah's motion was denied. In his order, the immigration judge reiterated that should Shah fail to appear for his reopened deportation hearing, any and all applications for relief would be deemed abandoned. The judge rescheduled the reopened deportation hearing for December 1, 1983. A copy of this order was served by certified mail on each of the three attorneys who had represented Shah before the immigration judge.
On October 25, 1983, Shah appealed the denial of his motion for change of venue to the Board of Immigration Appeals. The reopened hearing was convened before the immigration judge on December 1st, but neither Shah nor any of his attorneys appeared, and he was ordered deported to Pakistan in absentia. Shah appealed the deportation order to the Board of Immigration Appeals which dismissed both of his appeals by decision dated October 4, 1984.
The Board found the immigration judge's denial of the motion for...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Munoz-Giron
...to appear, including the possibility of an in absentia hearing as well as an order of deportation being entered. See Shah v. I.N.S., 788 F.2d 970, 972 (4th Cir.1986); see also Patel v. I.N.S., 803 F.2d 804, 806 (5th Cir.1986). 12 Notice must be consistent with statutory requirements; among ......
-
Maldonado-Perez v. I.N.S.
...803 F.2d at 806 ("[t]he fact that [a deportation] hearing [is] held in absentia is not per se violative of due process"); Shah v. INS, 788 F.2d 970, 972 (4th Cir.1986) (when alien fails to appear at a deportation proceeding after afforded a reasonable opportunity to appear, immigration judg......
-
Wijeratne v. I.N.S.
...Fifth Circuit held that the alien was "clearly afforded a 'reasonable opportunity to be present.' " Id. at 806. See also Shah v. INS, 788 F.2d 970, 972 (4th Cir.1986) (IJ held deportation hearing in absentia after alien who was given two months notice failed to appear). Wijeratne argues tha......
-
Castillo-Duarte v. Barr
...1986), and counsel's losing a hearing notice, Wellington v. I.N.S., 108 F.3d 631, 635 (5th Cir. 1997), do not. See also Shah v. I.N.S., 788 F.2d 970, 972 (4th Cir. 1986) (holding that a pending motion to change venue did not excuse failure to appear). Extending reasonable cause to the statu......