Raju Raj Giri, Susmita Giri, Riwaj Giri v. Peter D. Keisler, Acting U.s. Attorney General

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-60569
RAJU RAJ GIRI, SUSMITA GIRI, RIWAJ GIRI,
Petitioners,
v.
PETER D. KEISLER, ACTING U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent,
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Before KING, BARKSDALE, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Raju Raj Giri, along with his wife and their child, seeks review of an order
of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing their appeal from the
immigration judge’s decision to deny their application for asylum, withholding
of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). Pursuant
to the fugitive disentitlement doctrine, which we find applicable in this
immigration proceeding, the petition for review is DISMISSED.
I. BACKGROUND
The Giris, who are natives and citizens of Nepal, entered the United States
through California on or about July 4, 2003, as non-immigrant visitors with
authorization to remain in this country for a temporary period not to exceed
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
November 7, 2007
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk

-- 1 of 5 --

No. 06-60569
2
January 2, 2004. After overstaying their visas, the Giris were issued notices on
February 5, 2004, to appear in immigration court for deportation proceedings.
At an immigration court hearing on April 5, 2004, the Giris conceded
removability, and then applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and
protection under the CAT. After a hearing on the merits on September 15, 2004,
the immigration judge rendered an oral decision on March 15, 2005, denying the
Giris’ claims for relief and ordering them removed to Nepal. On June 7, 2006,
the BIA affirmed the immigration judge’s decision. The Giris then filed a
petition for review of the BIA’s decision with this court.
During the pendency of the Giris’ petition, the United States Immigration
and Customs Enforcement (ICE) denied their application for a stay of
deportation or removal on October 24, 2006, resulting in their removal orders
becoming administratively final. The Giris subsequently failed to report, as
required, to ICE with an unexpired passport and a one-way ticket to Nepal.
Acknowledging that ICE considered the Giris to be in “fugitive status” at that
point, they filed a motion for stay of removal with this court on February 17,
2007, which was ultimately denied. In a letter dated February 28, 2007, the
United States Department of Justice stated that the Giris are “currently not in
custody” and are “currently absconder fugitives.” On March 9, 2007, the
Government filed a motion to dismiss the Giris’ petition for review based on the
fugitive disentitlement doctrine, contending that the Giris had failed to comply
with various ICE orders and to cooperate with ICE personnel. To this day, the
Giris have not reported for removal.
II. ANALYSIS
The question presented in this appeal is whether the fugitive
disentitlement doctrine may be invoked to dismiss a petition for review of a BIA
decision by a fugitive alien. This is an issue of first impression in this circuit.

-- 2 of 5 --

No. 06-60569
3
In another context, we have observed that “the fugitive disentitlement
doctrine limits a criminal defendant’s access to the judicial system whose
authority he evades.” Bagwell v. Dretke, 376 F.3d 408, 410 (5th Cir. 2004). As
the Bagwell court explained:
The Supreme Court first recognized the doctrine over 100 years
ago, and the doctrine has since been used by both district and
appellate courts to enter judgment against a fugitive defendant
or to dismiss the defendant’s appeal. This power stems not from
any statute, but rather from a court’s inherent power “to protect
[its] proceedings and judgments in the course of discharging [its]
traditional responsibilities.”
Id. (alterations in original) (footnotes omitted) (quoting Degen v. United States,
517 U.S. 820, 823 (1996)); see also United States v. Delagarza-Villarreal, 141
F.3d 133, 136 (5th Cir. 1997) (“It is generally accepted that circuit courts have
the authority to fashion procedural rules governing the management of litigation
before them.”). We have summarized the Supreme Court’s justifications for use
of the fugitive disentitlement as follows:
First, if a defendant is a fugitive when the court considers his
case, it may be impossible for the court to enforce any judgment
that it renders. Second, courts have advanced a waiver or
abandonment theory: by fleeing custody, the defendant is thought
to have waived or abandoned his right to an appeal. Third,
allowing a court to dismiss a fugitive’s case is thought to
“discourage[] the felony of escape and encourage[] voluntary
surrenders.” Fourth, because a litigant’s escape impedes the
ability of a court to adjudicate the proceedings before it, dismissal
of the case furthers the court’s “interest in efficient practice.”
Finally, the criminal defendant’s escape is thought to represent
an affront to the dignity and authority of the court.
376 F.3d at 411 (alterations in original) (internal quotation marks and footnotes
omitted).
With these rationales in mind, we now find it proper to extend the fugitive
disentitlement doctrine to the immigration context where, as here, the
petitioners are fugitive aliens who have evaded custody and failed to comply

-- 3 of 5 --

No. 06-60569
4
with a removal order. In so holding, we join with every other circuit that has
addressed whether the fugitive disentitlement doctrine applies to appeals from
the BIA under similar facts. See Gao v. Gonzales, 481 F.3d 173 (2d Cir. 2007)
(affirming precedent established in Bar-Levy v. INS, 990 F.2d 33 (2d Cir. 1993));
Garcia-Flores v. Gonzales, 477 F.3d 439 (6th Cir. 2007); Sapoundjiev v. Ashcroft,
376 F.3d 727 (7th Cir. 2004); Antonio-Martinez v. INS, 317 F.3d 1089 (9th Cir.
2003); Arana v. INS, 673 F.2d 75 (3d Cir. 1982). The Seventh Circuit’s reasoning
is particularly persuasive in light of the justifications advanced by the Supreme
Court to support use of the doctrine in other contexts:
Litigation entails reciprocal obligations: an appellant (or
petitioner) who demands that the United States respect a
favorable outcome must ensure that an adverse decision also can
be carried out. When an alien fails to report for custody, this sets
up the situation that Antonio-Martinez called “heads I win, tails
you’ll never find me.” A litigant whose disappearance makes an
adverse judgment difficult if not impossible to enforce cannot
expect favorable action. . . . Someone who cannot be bound by a
loss has warped the outcome in a way prejudicial to the other
side; the best solution is to dismiss the proceeding. That
proposition is as applicable to the fugitive alien as it is to the
fugitive criminal defendant . . . .
Sapoundjiev, 376 F.3d at 728-29 (internal citations omitted) (quoting Antonio-
Martinez, 317 F.3d at 1093). We also agree with the Ninth Circuit that applying
the fugitive disentitlement doctrine to certain immigration cases “furthers its
punitive and deterrent purposes.” Antonio-Martinez, 317 F.3d at 1093. As the
Ninth Circuit explained: “Those who disregard their legal and common-sense
obligation to stay in touch while their lawyers appeal an outstanding deportation
order should be sanctioned. The prospect of disentitlement provides a strong
incentive to maintain contact with the INS and counsel, rather than taking one’s
continued presence in the country for granted.” Id.

-- 4 of 5 --

No. 06-60569
5
Here, it is uncontested that the Giris have become fugitives since they filed
their petition for review with this court. Consequently, they now wish to invoke
the protection that a favorable decision from this court would provide, without
submitting themselves to the risk of an adverse ruling. While it is certainly
possible that the Giris may eventually decide to comply with their removal order
following an adverse ruling in this matter, there is no indication that they will
do so, and thus any decision on the merits, unless it is to petitioners’ liking, may
have no practical effect whatsoever. It is, as the Ninth Circuit suggests, akin to
a game of “heads I win, tails you’ll never find me.” Id. We can find no reason to
indulge such conduct, and therefore conclude that the fugitive disentitlement
doctrine serves to bar further review of the BIA’s decision.
III. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Giris’ petition for review is DISMISSED.

-- 5 of 5 --