Anantkumar Patel v. Jefferson B. Sessions, III, No. 18-1471 (8th Cir. 2018)Annotate this Case
Court Description: Per Curiam - Before Loken, Colloton and Stras, Circuit Judges] Petition for Review - Immigration. The BIA did not err in determining that petitioners' motion to reopen was untimely and numerically barred, because it was filed more than seven years after the BIA's final administrative order and was petitioners' third motion to reopen; the BIA's decision whether to reopen proceedings sua sponte is committed to the agency's discretion and is not subject to this court's review; there is no constitutionally protected liberty or property interest in a discretionary grant of sua sponte reopening or the underlying relief petitioners sought.
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of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals ____________ Submitted: September 18, 2018 Filed: October 16, 2018 [Unpublished] ____________ Before LOKEN, COLLOTON, and STRAS, Circuit Judges.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-