Dipak Chaudhari v. Loretta Lynch, No. 15-60280 (5th Cir. 2016)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Case: 15-60280 Document: 00513637013 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/15/2016 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 15-60280 Summary Calendar United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED August 15, 2016 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk DIPAK CHAUDHARI, Petitioner v. LORETTA LYNCH, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals BIA No. A200 812 968 Before BENAVIDES, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Dipak Chaudhari, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing his appeal of the immigration judge’s (IJ) denial of his motion to reopen his in absentia removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction to review the denial of this motion. See Nolos v. Holder, 611 F.3d 279, 281 (5th Cir. 2010). We review the BIA’s Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4. * Case: 15-60280 Document: 00513637013 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/15/2016 No. 15-60280 denials of motions to reopen under a “highly deferential abuse-of-discretion standard.” Zhao v. Gonzales, 404 F.3d 295, 303 (5th Cir. 2005). Chaudhari argues that he never received notice of the date and time of his removal hearing. Service of notice of the removal hearing upon Chaudhari’s constituted attorney adequate notice. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229(a)(2)(A); § 1229a(b)(5)(A); 8 C.F.R. § 1292.5(a); Rodriguez-Manzano v. Holder, 666 F.3d 948, 953 n.6 (5th Cir. 2012); Men Ken Chang v. Jiugni, 669 F.2d 275, 277-78 (5th Cir. 1982). Thus, Chaudhari has not shown that the BIA abused its discretion. See Zhao, 404 F.3d at 303. The petition for review is DENIED. 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.