Patel v. Gonzales

161 F. App'x 298
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Patel v. Gonzales. Read the opinion of the Court — 221 F. App'x 244
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit·Decided January 9, 2006·No. 05-1326·Unpublished

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Nilesh Kantilal Patel, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals affirming without opinion the Immigration Judge’s denial of Patel’s motion to reopen. Patel sought rescission of a final order of deportation entered in absentia, asserting that his absence from court was due to exceptional circumstances beyond his control. We have reviewed the administrative record and conclude that the denial of the motion to reopen the in absentia order was not an abuse of discretion. See INS v. Doherty, 502 U.S. 314, 323-34, 112 S.Ct. 719, 116 L.Ed.2d 823 (1992); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(4)(iii)(A)(1) (2005).

We accordingly deny the petition for review. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED

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

Patel v. Gonzales, 161 F. App'x 298 (4th Cir. 2006).

161 F. App'x 298 (Patel v. Gonzales) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Immigration & Naturalization Service v. Doherty
502 U.S. 314 (Supreme Court, 1992)