Dipak Chaudhari v. Loretta Lynch , 668 F. App'x 83 ( 2016 )

Case: 15-60280 Document: 00513637013 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/15/2016
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
United States Court of Appeals
No. 15-60280
Fifth Circuit
FILED
Summary Calendar August 15, 2016
Lyle W. Cayce
DIPAK CHAUDHARI, Clerk
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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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 attorney constituted 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