Yasmeen Manjiyani v. Immigration and Naturalization Service

Opinion by Judge MURGIA; Dissent by Judge BETTY B. FLETCHER.

OPINION

Petitioner, Yasmeen Manjiyani, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) decision affirming the denial of her motion to reopen deportation proceedings. The issue before the Court *1140 is whether notice of the deportation hearing was sufficient where the notice was sent to the Petitioner’s last address known to the Immigration Judge in Seattle, but was not sent to the last address known to INS in Los Angeles. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1105a(a). 2 For the reasons given below, we deny the petition.

I. BACKGROUND

Manjiyani, a citizen of India, entered the United States on May 31, 1990 at New York, New York on a fraudulent B-2 visitors visa at the age of 24. In June, 1990, she married Faridali Manjiyani, a legal permanent resident, in New York City. Faridali Manjiyani filed a visa petition for his wife on May 4, 1992. This petition was approved on June 17, 1992, thereby recognizing Manjiyani as the spouse of a legalized permanent resident. Manjiyani currently is a homemaker with two small children.

The Manjiyanis moved to Yakima, Washington in September, 1992. On…

dissenting:

I respectfully dissent. The majority adopts a rule that permits the INS to deport an alien in absentia when the agency, in full knowledge of the alien’s current address, has failed to mail notice to the alien of the deportation proceedings. Due process does not permit such a result.

Our precedents require that the agency must send notice of deportation proceedings to the alien’s last known address. See Dobrota v. INS, 311 F.3d 1206, 1210 (9th Cir.2002); Farhoud v. INS, 122 F.3d 794, 796 (9th Cir.1997). The law does not require that the alien actually receive notice of the proceedings, but it places a reasonable burden on the INS to make an effort consistent with the agency’s awareness of the alien’s address and contact information. Dobrota, 311 F.3d at 1210 .

The undisputed record in this case demonstrates that the INS was aware of petitioner Manjiyani’s actual and then-current California address at least three months before any attempt was made to notify her of deportation proceedings in Seattle. In January 1996, two and a half years after the INS served her with an order to show cause, Manjiyani, after moving to California, provided the INS in Los Angeles with her…

324 F.3d 1138 Yasmeen MANJIYANI, Petitioner, v. IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE, Respondent. No. 01-70415. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted June 13, 2002. Filed April 11, 2003. Timothy M. Greene, Law Offices of Greene & Lloyd, PLLC, Puyallup, WA, for the petitioner. Mark C. Walters and Anh-Thu P. Mai, United States Department of Justice, Washington DC; Ronald E. LeFevre, Immigration and Naturalization Service, San Francisco, CA, for the respondent. Donald A. Couvillon, Linda S. Wendtland, Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, for Respondent. 1 Before B. FLETCHER and GOULD, Circuit Judges, and MURGUIA, District Judge. 1 2 Opinion by Judge MURGIA; Dissent by Judge BETTY B. FLETCHER. OPINION 3 MURGUIA, District Judge. 4 Petitioner, Yasmeen Manjiyani, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") decision affirming the denial of her motion to reopen deportation proceedings. The issue before the Court is whether notice of the deportation hearing was sufficient where the notice was sent to the Petitioner's last address known to the Immigration Judge in Seattle, but was not sent to the last address known to INS…