Malik Awan v. Jefferson Sessions

Ninth Circuit

Malik Awan v. Jefferson Sessions

699 F. App'x 743

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedOctober 30, 2017

Docket14-72929

StatusUnpublished

This text of 699 F. App'x 743 (Malik Awan v. Jefferson Sessions) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Malik Awan v. Jefferson Sessions, 699 F. App'x 743 (9th Cir. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Malik Dil Awan, a native and citizen of Pakistan, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings conducted in absentia. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial' of a motion to reopen. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Awan’s motion to reopen, based on lack of notice, where Awan was personally served with two prior hearing notices containing his address of record, filed a letter with the court indicating he would be leaving the country prior to his hearing date, and timely appealed the immigration judge’s in absentia order. See Sembiring v. Gonzales, 499 F.3d 981, 985 (9th Cir. 2007) (BIA does not abuse its discretion unless it acted “arbitrarily, irrationally, or contrary to law” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)); cf. Khan v. Ashcroft, 374 F.3d 825, 828-29 (9th Cir. 2004) (actual notice is sufficient to meet due process requirements). Based on the evidence in this case, Awan has not shown that the BIA erred in determining his statement in support of the motion to reopen was inherently unbelievable. See Avagyan v. Holder, 646 F.3d 672, 678-79 (9th Cir. 2011).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

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

MEMORANDUM **

Malik Dil Awan, a native and citizen of Pakistan, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings conducted in absentia. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial' of a motion to reopen. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Awan’s motion to reopen, based on lack of notice, where Awan was personally served with two prior hearing notices containing his address of record, filed a letter with the court indicating he would be leaving the country prior to his hearing date, and timely appealed the immigration judge’s in absentia order. See Sembiring v. Gonzales, 499 F.3d 981, 985 (9th Cir. 2007) (BIA does not abuse its discretion unless it acted “arbitrarily, irrationally, or contrary to law” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)); cf. Khan v. Ashcroft, 374 F.3d 825, 828-29 (9th Cir. 2004) (actual notice is sufficient to meet due process requirements). Based on the evidence in this case, Awan has not shown that the BIA erred in determining his statement in support of the motion to reopen was inherently unbelievable. See Avagyan v. Holder, 646 F.3d 672, 678-79 (9th Cir. 2011).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

699 F. App'x 743, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/malik-awan-v-jefferson-sessions-ca9-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack