Azhdaroldini v. Gonzales

* 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
March 7, 2007
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-60612
Summary Calendar
SARA AZHDAROLDINI,
Petitioner,
versus
ALBERTO R. GONZALES, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
--------------------
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
BIA No. A76 439 127
--------------------
Before KING, HIGGINBOTHAM, and GARZA, Circuit Judges
PER CURIAM:*
Sara Azhdaroldini petitions for review of the Board of
Immigration Appeals’ (BIA’s) denial of her motion to reconsider
the decision denying her motion to reopen an in absentia removal
proceeding. Azhdaroldini argues her motion for reconsideration
should have been granted because (1) it was improper for the BIA
to simply adopt the immigration judge’s decision denying her
motion to reopen without making its own independent judgment
regarding the merits and (2) the BIA’s decision was decided by
only a one-member panel. We deem these arguments meritless

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 06-60612
-2-
because the BIA’s independent review does not preclude it from
adopting or affirming a decision of the immigration judge, where,
as in this case, the BIA is in agreement with the reasoning and
result of the immigration judge’s decision. See Matter of
Burbano, 20 I&N Dec. 872, 873-74 (BIA 1994). Moreover, the
immigration regulations authorize a single BIA member to issue a
decision on the merits of a case affirming the decision of the
immigration judge. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(e)(5).
Azhdaroldini additionally argues that there was sufficient
information before the immigration judge from which a finding
could have been made that she did not receive adequate notice of
her removal proceeding. The evidence presented to the
immigration judge in the motion to reopen, namely the counsel’s
letter and her mother’s green card, do not indicate that
Azhdaroldini did not receive her notice to appear. We hold,
therefore, that the denial of Azhdaroldini’s motion for
reconsideration was not an abuse of discretion because she did
not identify a change in the law, a misapplication of the law, or
an aspect of the case that the BIA overlooked. See Zhao v.
Gonzales, 404 F.3d 295, 301 (5th Cir. 2005).
PETITION DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --