Irakli Bregvadze v. Alberto Gonzales , 196 F. App'x 446 ( 2006 )


Menu:
  •                      United States Court of Appeals
    FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
    ___________
    No. 05-2104
    ___________
    Irakli Bregvadze,                     *
    *
    Petitioner,              *
    * Petition for Review
    v.                              * of an Order of the
    * Board of Immigration Appeals.
    Alberto Gonzales, Attorney General of *
    the United States of America,         * [UNPUBLISHED]
    *
    Respondent.              *
    ___________
    Submitted: October 6, 2006
    Filed: October 23, 2006
    ___________
    Before SMITH, MAGILL, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.
    ___________
    PER CURIAM.
    Irakli Bregvadze, a citizen of Georgia, petitions for review of an order of the
    Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) which affirmed an Immigration Judge’s (IJ’s)
    denial of his motion to reopen removal proceedings. In February 2000 the former
    Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) charged Bregvadze with being
    removable and, in March 2000, he was ordered removed in absentia after he failed to
    appear for his removal hearing. Four years later, in March 2004, he moved to reopen,
    but the IJ denied the motion as untimely, and the BIA adopted and affirmed the IJ’s
    decision.
    After careful review of the record, we conclude the BIA did not abuse its
    discretion in affirming the IJ’s denial of the motion to reopen as untimely. See 8
    U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(5)(C) (motion to reopen in absentia removal proceeding may be
    brought at any time if alien demonstrates he did not receive proper notice of the
    hearing; otherwise motion must be filed within 180 days after date of removal order);
    Haider v. Gonzales, 
    438 F.3d 902
    , 906-08 (8th Cir. 2006) (BIA did not abuse its
    discretion in denying untimely-filed motion to reopen where alien was personally
    served with Notice to Appear, putting him on notice of the removal proceedings
    including his obligation to keep his address updated, and a subsequent Notice of
    Hearing, containing time and date information, was mailed to him at his listed address;
    alien’s assertion that he did not receive the Notice of Hearing as he had moved did not
    provide grounds for reopening because he failed to update his address); Iavorski v.
    INS, 
    232 F.3d 124
    , 134 (2d Cir. 2000) (2-year delay between alien’s in absentia
    removal hearing and his next effort towards investigating his claim reflected lack of
    diligence not warranting equitable tolling of limitations period for filing motion to
    reopen).
    Accordingly, we deny the petition for review.
    ______________________________
    -2-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 05-2104

Citation Numbers: 196 F. App'x 446

Filed Date: 10/23/2006

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 1/12/2023