Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility

08-1423, 08-2017 Patel v. Holder

By: dmc-admin//April 27, 2009//

08-1423, 08-2017 Patel v. Holder

By: dmc-admin//April 27, 2009//

Listen to this article

Immigration
Judicial review

The court lacks jurisdiction to review a claim that an alien did not receive notice of his removal hearing.
“Patel first contends that the BIA erred in concluding that he received actual notice of the hearing date, placing too much weight on the certified mail receipt signed ‘Patel.’ This argument does not present a constitutional claim, since due process does not require that the alien ‘actually receive’ notice of removal proceedings, but only that the government attempt to deliver notice to the last address provided by the alien. Joshi v. Ashcroft, 389 F.3d 732, 735 (7th Cir. 2004). Although Patel’s brief suggests at one point that the New York address used by the INS differed from the one that he provided for the purpose of proper service, Patel does not develop that claim into a due process challenge. Instead, his brief repeatedly states that the issue in this case is whether he ‘actually received’ notice. Given Patel’s failure to develop a due process argument based on lack of sufficient notice, he has not presented a ‘colorable’ constitutional claim. Zamora- Mallari v. Mukasey, 514 F.3d 679, 696 (7th Cir. 2008).”
Dismissed.

08-1423, 08-2017 Patel v. Holder

Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals, Tinder, J.

Polls

Should Steven Avery be granted a new evidentiary hearing?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Legal News

See All Legal News

WLJ People

Sea all WLJ People

Opinion Digests