Anantkumar Patel v. Jefferson B. Sessions, III

Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit·Decided October 16, 2018·No. 18-1471·Unpublished

Opinion

United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________

No. 18-1471 ___________________________

Anantkumar Patel; Meenaben Patel,

lllllllllllllllllllllPetitioners,

v.

Jefferson B. Sessions, III, Attorney General of the United States,

lllllllllllllllllllllRespondent. ____________

Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals ____________

Submitted: September 18, 2018 Filed: October 16, 2018 [Unpublished] ____________

Before LOKEN, COLLOTON, and STRAS, Circuit Judges. ____________

PER CURIAM.

Anantkumar and Meenaben Patel, citizens of India, petition for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denying their motion asking the BIA to reopen their deportation proceedings sua sponte to allow them to pursue adjustment of status. Under the Immigration and Nationality Act, an alien may file one statutory motion to reopen removal proceedings. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229(c)(7)(A). This motion must be filed within 90 days of the final removal order. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(7)(C)(i). Accordingly, we conclude the BIA correctly determined that the Patels’ motion in October 2017 was untimely and numerically barred, because it was filed more than seven years after the BIA’s 2010 final administrative order, and it was their third motion to reopen. We further conclude that the BIA’s decision whether to reopen proceedings sua sponte is committed to the agency’s discretion by law, and therefore not subject to this court’s review. See Tamenut v. Mukasey, 521 F.3d 1000, 1001 (8th Cir. 2008) (en banc) (per curiam).

Finally, we conclude that the Patels do not state a colorable due-process claim, as they have no constitutionally protected liberty or property interest in a discretionary grant of sua sponte reopening, or the underlying relief (adjustment of status) that they sought. See Matias v. Sessions, 871 F.3d 65, 72 (1st Cir. 2017) (sua sponte reopening); Nativi-Gomez v. Ashcroft, 344 F.3d 805, 808 (8th Cir. 2003) (adjustment of status). The petition is dismissed. ______________________________

-2-

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Anantkumar Patel v. Jefferson B. Sessions, III, (8th Cir. 2018).

Anantkumar Patel v. Jefferson B. Sessions, III (Anantkumar Patel v. Jefferson B. Sessions, III) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Tamenut v. Mukasey
521 F.3d 1000 (Eighth Circuit, 2008)
F. Nativi-Gomez v. John Ashcroft
344 F.3d 805 (Eighth Circuit, 2003)
Ramirez Matias v. Sessions
871 F.3d 65 (First Circuit, 2017)