Maulikhbai Chaudhari v. Todd Blanche

── Maulikhbai Chaudhari v. Todd Blanche ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit Date: April 22, 2026 Category: General United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 25-2106 ___________________________ Maulikbhai Ramabhai Chaudhari lllllllllllllllllllllPetitioner v. Todd Blanche, Acting Attorney General of the United States1 lllllllllllllllllllllRespondent ____________ Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals ____________ Submitted: April 17, 2026 Filed: April 22, 2026 [Unpublished] ____________ Before LOKEN, GRUENDER, and KOBES, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Indian citizen Maulikbhai Ramabhai Chaudhari petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirming the denial of his motion to 1 Todd Blanche is automatically substituted as respondent in place of Pamela Bondi. Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 43(c)(2). reopen removal proceedings and denying his motion to remand. We deny the petition for review. Chaudhari entered the United States without inspection in 2019. The Department of Homeland Security initiated removal proceedings against him that November, charging him with removability because he arrived without a valid immigrant visa or other valid entry document. While represented by counsel, Chaudhari applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture, claiming he had been persecuted in India because he had campaigned against the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party. In April 2024, Chaudhari terminated his then-counsel’s representation and retained Mazher M. Shah-Khan. In May, after a hearing on the merits, the immigration judge (IJ) found Chaudhari not credible, denied his applications for relief and protection from removal, and ordered him removed to India. Chaudhari did not appeal the decision to the BIA, making the IJ’s order the final order of removal. See C.F.R. § 1241.1(b)-(c). In August 2024, Chaudhari filed with the IJ a counseled motion to reopen the removal proceedings so he could seek a continuance pending adjudication of a petition for U nonimmigrant status (U-Visa). See 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(U) (establishing visa eligibility for victims of qualifying crimes who assist law enforcement). Chaudhari did not include with his motion any proof, such as a “Notice of Action,” indicating that his U-Visa application had been received by the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), but submitted a “U-Visa Supplement B Certification”--a part of the U-Visa application--from the Chattanooga Police Department. See 8 U.S.C. § 1184(p)(1) (noncitizen seeking U-Visa must file petition containing “certification from a . . . law enforcement official . . . . [and] state that the alien ‘has been helpful, is being helpful, or is likely to be helpful’ in the investigation or prosecution of criminal activity”). The government opposed the motion. The IJ denied it on August 26, finding that Chaudhari had not established a likelihood of success in obtaining a U-Visa, the government opposed -2- the motion, and the motion was speculative. Chaudhari appealed the denial to the BIA, and included for the first time the Notice of Action indicating a U-Visa petition had been filed with USCIS. While that appeal was pending, Chaudhari filed with the BIA a counseled motion to remand based on Shah-Khan’s alleged ineffective assistance of counsel, arguing that counsel only informed him of his merits h