Gulabbhai Mistry v. Attorney General United States of America

── Gulabbhai Mistry v. Attorney General United States of America ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit Date: April 22, 2026 Category: General NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ____________ No. 25-2129 ____________ GULABBHAI RAGHNATHJI MISTRY, Petitioner v. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES ____________ On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Agency No. A074-988-585) Immigration Judge: Annie S. Garcy ____________ Submitted Under Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a) on March 19, 2026 Before: MATEY, FREEMAN, and CHUNG, Circuit Judges (Opinion filed: April 22, 2026 ) _______________ OPINION * _______________ * This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent. FREEMAN, Circuit Judge. Petitioner seeks review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) order (1) dismissing his appeal of the Immigration Judge’s (IJ) denial of his motion to reopen removal proceedings and (2) denying his motion to terminate the proceedings. We will deny the petition. I Petitioner attests that he was born in India as Gulabbhai Raghnathji Mistry in 1947. In the 1970s, he twice applied for visas to the United States. Both applications were rejected due to fraudulent information provided in the first application. He then changed his name to Dashrath Panchal, applied again, and was approved. After receiving a second visa under the name Dashrath Panchal, he entered the United States in 1989 and remained after the visa expired. In 1995, Petitioner applied to become a lawful permanent resident under the name Gulabbhai Mistry. During the application process, he admitted in writing to the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS)1 that he changed his name to obtain a visa because his previous applications were denied. The INS twice denied his applications, determining that he could not prove he was Gulabbhai Mistry. It also deemed Petitioner inadmissible because he made a willful misrepresentation of material fact to the INS. 1 The INS has since become a part of the Department of Homeland Security. Homeland Security Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107-296, 116 Stat. 2135, § 441 (2002). 2  In 2005, Petitioner was served with a Notice to Appear charging him as removable under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(C)(i), which renders a noncitizen inadmissible if he sought to procure a visa or admission into the United States “by fraud or willfully misrepresenting a material fact.” An IJ held a hearing in 2007, and Petitioner appeared with retained counsel. During that hearing, the parties and the IJ agreed that the charge should be amended to 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(1)(A), which makes a noncitizen removable if he was inadmissible at the time of entry.2 The government made that amendment. As the factual basis for the charge, the government alleged that Petitioner was inadmissible at the time of entry because he sought to procure a visa or admission into the United States by fraud or willful misrepresentation of material fact. Through counsel, Petitioner admitted all factual allegations and conceded the amended charge. The IJ then ordered Petitioner removed to India. Petitioner had 30 days to file a notice of appeal, 8 C.F.R. §§ 1003.1(d)(2)(i)(G), 1003.38(b) (