Interim Decision #2993
MATTER OF' PATEL
In Deportation Proceedings
A-23603085
Decided by Board September A 1985
(1) Where an alien had notice of his hearing, had an opportunity to attend, and
showed no reasonable cause for his failure to appear, the Dearing may properly be
held in absentia.
(2) The submission of a motion for a continuance does not relieve an alien or his
attorney of the responsibility to attend a deportation hearing of which they have
been given notice.
(3) Unless a motion for a continuance has been granted prior to the hearing, the
alien remains obligated to appear before an immigration judge at the appointed
date and time to plead to the factual allegations and the charge of deportability
stated in the Oran: - to Shnw Cause and Notice of Hearing (Form 1-221).
(4) The immigration judge properly conducted the respondent's hearing in absentia
where no reasonable cause was offered for the respondent's absence and counsel's
own failure to appear.
CHARGE:
Order: Act of 1952—Sec. 241(aX2) [8 U.S.C. § 1251(aX2))—Nonimmigrant—remained longer than permitted
ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT& ON BEHALF OF SERVICE:
Marshall M. Taheri, Esquire Charles Wiegand III
Western Bank Building General Attorney
5433 Westheimer, Suite 950
Houston, Texas 77056
BY: Milhollan, Chairman; Maniatis, Dunne, Morris, and Vacca, Board Members
In a decision dated June 19, 1985, 1 the immigration judge found
the respondent deportable and ordered him deported from the
United States. The decision was rendered at a hearing held in absentia due to the respondent's failure to appear. The respondent
has appealed from the immigration judge's decision. The appeal
The immigration judge's decision is dated June 19, 1985, but indicates that it
was not mailed until July 2, 1985.
260
Interim Decision #2993
will be dismissed. The respondent's request for oral argument is
denied.
The record reflects that notice was sent to the respondent on
May 19, 1985, informing. him that his deportation hearing was
scheduled for 1:00 p.m. on June 19, 1985. Also included in the
record is a letter dated May 24, 1985, from the respondent's former
counsel requesting a continuance due to a conflicting immigration
hearing. The immigration judge's decision indicates that an arrangement was made to change the date of the attorney's other
hearing and that counsel was notified to appear with the respondent as scheduled. It further reflects that when neither the respondent nor his attorney appeared on June 19, 1985, the immigration
judge held the hearing in absentia. 2
On appeal, the respondent argues through his new counsel that
the immigration judge erred in proceeding with the hearing in absentia. Counsel states that he was retained by the respondent on
June 11, 1985, at which time he submitted a letter requesting a
continuance_ The letter, which is included in the record, indicates
that postponement of the hearing was requested due to the recency
of the attorney's retention by the respondent and his "conflicting
engagement." Counsel further asserts on appeal that he did not receive a written response from the immigration. court, but that his
office was contacted by the clerk of the court 2 days before the
hearing when he was away from his office. He allegedly returned
the call the following day but received no information regarding
the motion for a continuance until the morning of the hearing,
when the court notified his office that his request had been denied
by the immigration judge. Counsel contends that his motion for a
continuance was justified and that the immigration judge deprived
the respondent of his due process right to counsel by holding the
hearing in his absence.
Section 242(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252(b) (1982), provides as follows:
If any alien has been given a reasonable opportunity to be present at a proceeding
under this section, and without reasonable cause fails or refuses to attend or
remain in attendance at such proceeding, the special inquiry officer may proceed
to a determination in like manner as if the alien were present.
This Board has held that a hearing in absentia is appropriate
where the alien had notice of his hearing, had an opportunity to
attend, and showed no reasonable cause for his failure to appear.
2 The record contains a letter from the respondent's former counsel withdrawing
his appearance at the respondent's request. However, the letter is dated July 6,
1985, well after the date scheduled for the respondent's hearing.
261
Interim Decision #2993
See Matter of Marallag, 13 I&N Dec. 775 (131A 1971). We are not
convinced that the respondent has established sufficient reason for
his absence at the hearing.
Upon the issuance of an Order to Show Cause and Notice of
Hearing (Form I - 221), an alien is required to appear before an immigration judge at a designated time and place to plead to the factual allegations and the charges of deportability against him. See
8
C.F.R. §§ 242.1(h), 242.16(b) (1985). The respondent clearly had
notice of the scheduled hearing date and has offered no justification whatsoever for his failure to appear before the immigration
judge.
Counsel's allegations regarding his request for a continuance also
do not constitute a reasonable explanation for either his or the respondent's absence from the hearing. The mere submission of a
motion for a continuance does not relieve an alien or his attorney
of the responsibility to attend a deportation hearing of which they
have been given notice. It may not be assumed that adjournment of
the proceedings is assured by the filing of such a motion. Unless
the immigration judge has granted a motion for a continuance
prior to the hearing, the alien remains obligated to appear at the
appointed date and time.
The respondent and his attorney were not therefore excused
from attending the deportation hearing simply by requesting a continuance. Furthermore, by his own admission, counsel was notified
by the immigration court on the morning of the hearing that a continuance had been denied. Although he clearly was aware that an
appearance was required at the hearing, counsel was not present
and apparently made no effort to ensure the respondent's attendance. No reasonable cause has been shown for this absence. We
therefore conclude that the immigration judge properly conducted
the hearing in absentia.
In any event, counsel has failed to establish that adjournment of
the proceedings was warranted in this case. See
8 C.F.R. § 242.13
(1985). His alleged "conflicting engagement" has never been explained and he has offered no affidavit to support his claimed inability to attend the hearing. In fact, counsel has indicated that he
was in his office on the afternoon of the hearing. We are therefore
unconvinced that a continuance was necessary to avoid a conflict
in his schedule.
There is also no indication that counsel had insufficient time to
prepare for the hearing. The respondent's deportability as an overstayed nonimmigrant was established by Service documents of
record and has not been contested on appeal. Furthermore, no eligibility for discretionary relief has been alleged or established. The
262
Interim Decision #2993
respondent has therefore made no showing that he was prejudiced
as a result of the immigration judge's refusal to adjourn the proceedings. See Matter of Sibrun, 18 I&N Dec. 354 (BIA 1983). Consequently, we find no error in the denial of counsel's request for a
continuance. Accordingly, the appeal will be dismissed.
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.
263
