Plaintiff Batdorj Dagvadorj appeals the District Court's grant of summary judgment for Defendants. Dagvadorj contends that he was denied his right to procedural Due Process by Defendants and that Defendants were not entitled to qualified immunity. We assume the parties' familiarity with the facts of the case, its procedural history, and the scope of the issues on appeal.
Dagvadorj contests the process by which Defendants determined and reported that he had violated the conditions of his F-1 non-immigrant visa. This determination rendered Dagvadorj ineligible for future F-1 employment benefits, including Optional Practical Training that might enable him to work in the United States after graduating from college. Assuming without deciding that Dagvadorj had a constitutionally protected interest in his F-1 visa status that was affected by Defendants' actions, Dagvadorj was provided all of the process that he was due. In assessing procedural Due Process claims, we determine whether a party was provided both "reasonable notice" of the deprivation of a protected interest as well as "an opportunity to be heard." Karpova v. Snow, 497 F.3d 262, 270 (2d Cir. 2007). Dagvadorj received both. SUNY Binghamton's International Student and Scholar Services Office informed Dagvadorj that he was required to receive authorization from that office before commencing employment as a math and physics tutor at SUNY Morrisville. After Defendant Amelia Shafer, a student advisor in Binghamton's International Student and Scholar Services Office, met with Dagvadorj in March 2007 and ascertained that Dagvadorj had commenced employment without authorization, Defendant Badger, the Director of that Office, e-mailed Dagvadorj. She informed him that he violated the conditions of his F-1 visa, and she described the evidence supporting this conclusion. Dagvadorj was then given an opportunity to be heard, for in the same e-mail, Badger invited Dagvadorj to meet with her and discuss the issue. Dagvadorj accepted this invitation. He met with Badger on May 4, 2007 and was accompanied by counsel. Counsel subsequently sent a letter to Badger further explaining Dagvadorj's position. Under the circumstances of this case, no further process was necessary.
We have considered Dagvadorj's remaining arguments and find them to be without merit. Accordingly, the judgment of the District Court is AFFIRMED.