Case: 18-15203 Date Filed: 03/25/2020 Page: 1 of 12 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 18-15203 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ Agency No. A078-865-787 ANESH GUPTA, Petitioner, versus U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. ________________________ Petition for Review of a Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals ________________________ (March 25, 2020) Before WILSON, LAGOA, and TJOFLAT, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Case: 18-15203 Date Filed: 03/25/2020 Page: 2 of 12 Anesh Gupta is a serial litigant 1 who has endeavored for years to avoid deportation. Proceeding pro se here, he petitions for review of the final order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) dismissing his appeal from an Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) removal order for overstaying his visa under § 237(a)(1)(B) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”), 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(1)(B). On appeal, as best we can discern, he makes six separate arguments. He first argues that the IJ lacked jurisdiction to conduct his removal proceedings because he received a notice to appear (“NTA”) that did not list the time and place of his removal hearing. Second, he argues that the administrative record is incomplete for review. Third, he contends that the IJ erred by failing to inform him of any potential eligibility for relief from removal or adjustment of his immigration status. Fourth, he challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the BIA’s determination that he was removable for overstaying his visa. Fifth, he asserts that the IJ abused its discretion by refusing to continue his removal proceedings to await adjudication of his Form I-751 Petition to Remove Conditions of Legal Permanent Residence (“Form I-751”) by the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service (“USCIS”). Finally, he argues that the IJ erred by refusing to 1 See Gupta v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 2018 WL 6075494, *1 n.1 (M.D. Fla. Nov. 21, 2018) (noting that Gupta has filed twenty-one lawsuits in the Orlando Division of the Middle District of Florida since 2005, and is “dangerously close to being considered a vexatious litigant.”) 2 Case: 18-15203 Date Filed: 03/25/2020 Page: 3 of 12 issue a subpoena for page one of his Form I-181 Creation of Record of Lawful Permanent Resident (“Form I-181”). I. First, we turn to Gupta’s argument that the IJ lacked jurisdiction to conduct his removal proceedings because Gupta’s NTA did not list the time and place of his removal hearing. Normally, we lack jurisdiction to consider a claim raised in a petition for review “unless the petitioner has exhausted his administrative remedies with respect thereto.” Amaya-Artunduaga v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 463 F.3d 1247, 1250 (11th Cir. 2006); 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1). Gupta did not raise this argument before the BIA, so he has not exhausted his administrative remedies. However, we have, in the past, entertained jurisdictional arguments on appeal because they implicate our own jurisdiction, see Perez-Sanchez v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 935 F.3d 1148, 1153 (11th Cir. 2019) (stating that “we would have no jurisdiction to entertain” a petition for review if “the agency ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals