Although the Ninth Circuit's order granting the rehearing en banc was dated December 2. CONCLUSION 976
This appeal arises from a district court's order granting a writ of habeas corpus to a thirty year permanent resident alien petitioner with a cocaine trafficking conviction who was detained as he attempted to enter the United States after a two day trip to Haiti. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Although the Ninth Circuit's order granting the rehearing en banc was dated December 2. CONCLUSION 976
This appeal arises from a district court's order granting a writ of habeas corpus to a thirty year permanent resident alien petitioner with a cocaine trafficking conviction who was detained as he attempted to enter the United States after a two day trip to Haiti. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Appellee petitioner Ralph Richardson (
OPINION/ORDER
Contends that his potentially indefinite detention by the Immigration and Naturalization Service (
OPINION/ORDER
This is a petition for review of a final order of removal issued by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA). The BIA affirmed the immigration judge's decision that Julio Donaldo Ponce Leiva was removable and ineligible for asylum. We have jurisdiction to review the BIA's final order. We will deny Ponce Leiva's petition for review. He was in violation of § 212(a)(6)(A)(i) of the Immigration and Naturalization Act (INA). It informed Ponce Leiva that a hearing was scheduled for September 9. This time he was accompanied by counsel. The merits hearing was held as scheduled. He stated that continuing the hearing was not in Ponce Leiva's best interest. The judge concluded that without any evidence that counsel was a benefit to Ponce Leiva. Ponce Leiva was better off if the judge went forward with the hearing. The absence of counsel is not necessarily prejudicial error. The immigration judge then commented on his reasons for denying Ponce Leiva's application for asylum: The respondent freely acknowledged that he is an economic migrant and not a
OPINION/ORDER
Is hereby amended to replace the line TROTT.
OPINION/ORDER
Was convicted of recklessly causing the death of her child. Persons act recklessly when they
OPINION/ORDER
The basic law underlying Dia's substantive claims is clear. He is unable or unwilling to return to his home country
OPINION/ORDER
The Matovskis are natives and citizens of Macedonia. The B 2 visitor status applies to aliens who have a residence in a foreign country that they have no intention of abandoning and who are temporarily visiting the United States for pleasure. 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(B). After the Department of Labor earlier found there were insufficient qualified United States workers to perform the Nikolic work and the INS found Matovski was qualified for the position. Petitioners renewed their adjustment of status applications and argued that they were previously authorized to remain in the United States while pursuing their adjustment of status applications. The Immigration Judge found Petitioners inadmissible for failing to establish that immigrant visas were immediately available to them. The Immigration Judge found: (1) Petitioners were inadmissible because they willfully misrepresented a material fact to obtain an immigration benefit by filing two extension of status applications containing false information. (2) Petitioners were ineligible for adjustment of status as a matter of discretion.
OPINION/ORDER
Hernandez applied for suspension of deportation under a provision of the Violence Against Women Act of 1994 (
OPINION/ORDER
Dana & Gould LLP were on brief. Were on brief. Even for the federal agencies charged with enforcing the laws is illustrated by this case. What is involved is properly ascertaining congressional intent in light of constitutional guarantees in decision of cases. What is involved is whether she will be deported. Possibly back to that war torn land she left when she was a child. The complexity of the immigration laws was enhanced by two new statutes. Was signed into law. Was signed into law. Both statutes contain jurisdiction stripping provisions removing from the federal circuit courts of appeals their previous jurisdiction over certain categories of final orders of deportation. 2 2 This case was originally argued on May 9. It would have been vastly preferable. For the INS to have asserted this jurisdictional argument initially. We have some concern about the government's burdening of immigrants with the obligation to respond to new found statutory interpretations by the INS after a case has been heard and decided.1 Nonetheless.
OPINION/ORDER
That naturalization ceremony was the culmination of a 16 year struggle between Appellees and the Immigration and Naturalization Service (
OPINION/ORDER
As this is an appeal from a denial of a motion to dismiss on grounds largely of qualified immunity. We are asked to decide these weighty questions aided only by the skeletal at best factual picture sketched out in the complaint. 1 2 Pub. The federal courts may not dismiss a complaint unless
OPINION/ORDER
He found that she was entitled to relief under the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel. The BIA's decision was based upon its conclusion that the record did not support the Immigration Judge's finding that Zubeda would likely be detained if returned to the DRC. Although it appears that the Immigration Judge may have taken administrative notice of that fact. The record is not clear as to how the Immigration Judge concluded that Zubeda would likely be detained if deported. Inasmuch as the INS agrees that the most appropriate resolution is remand to the Immigration Judge for clarification and additional evidence. We will grant Zubeda's petition for review and remand the matter to the Immigration Judge. The Immigration Judge will also be able to consider any impact Zubeda's tribal identity may have on her claim for asylum. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY Takky Zubeda is a twenty eight year old female who is native to. She is legally married to a lawful permanent resident of the United States who entered this country as a refugee from the DRC in 1993.
OPINION/ORDER
The issue before the Court is whether notice of the deportation hearing was sufficient where the notice was sent to the Petitioner's last address known to the Immigration Judge in Seattle. Was not sent to the last address known to INS in Los Angeles. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1105a(a).2 For the reasons given below. A final order of deportation was issued after October 30. This petition was approved on June 17. Manjiyani currently is a homemaker with two small children. None of these forms indicated that Manjiyani was in deportation proceedings in Seattle. Two and a half years after Manjiyani was served with the Order to Show Cause and two months after she began proceedings to adjust her status. This notice was returned. This notice was returned on April 9. Another certified notice was sent to Manjiyani's Bellevue address regarding a rescheduled hearing for June 17. It was returned on April 8. The Seattle Immigration Court held a hearing in absentia and Manjiyani was granted voluntary departure until July 17.
OPINION/ORDER
We conclude that the plain language of S 208.15 makes clear that the prime factor in the firm r esettlement inquiry is the existence of an offer of permanent resident status. We reject an alternative
(2) the district court's order denying the INS' motion to dissolve the preliminary injunction.
Appellees/Plaintiffs (
OPINION/ORDER
Agyeman claims that he was denied a full and fair hearing because he was not given adequate instructions as to how to proceed with his applications for relief. That the denial of adjustment of status was predicated on his inability to procure his wife's attendance at the deportation hearing to testify on his behalf. Which was approved in 1992. Agyeman's application for adjustment of status was denied because the couple failed to attend the scheduled interview and submit Agyeman's medical examination. Levy was unable to attend the interview because she was hospitalized for bipolar disorder at the time. 10350 AGYEMAN v. The IJ instructed Agyeman that his wife's testimony was mandatory to determine the bona fides of their marriage. The IJ asked whether Levy was still hospitalized. The IJ stated that
OPINION/ORDER
The district court denied a motion to suppress statements that Salgado made about his birth and citizenship to a civil investigative agent of the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) while he was incarcerated in the Orange County Jail on charges unrelated to his immigration status. To an Orange County Police Officer when he was arrested (again on charges unrelated to his immigration status) after being deported and reentering the United States. SALGADO 8957 I Salgado was arrested on a state weapons charge and was housed at the Orange County Jail facility. Immigration Enforcement Officer Isley Lundgren was referred to Salgado by Orange County sheriff deputies because Salgado had indicated that he was born in a country other than the United States in the booking process. 1998 to determine whether he was subject to an administrative action for deportation. Salgado stated that he was a citizen and national of Mexico. That he was born in Tehuixtla. That his parents had been born in Mexico and were Mexican nationals.
OPINION/ORDER
The Alcarazes were statutorily eligible for suspension of deportation at the time they submitted their application. Before the date their applications were to be heard on the merits. They were denied suspension of deportation because they fell thirty days short of the seven year residency requirement under IIRIRA's new statutory scheme. Before the Alcarazes' appeal was heard by the BIA. The cases of qualifying aliens were administratively closed to allow the aliens to reapply for cancellation of removal. It failed to consider them for repapering despite the fact that they were 14168 ALCARAZ v. It was obligated to repaper the Alcarazes. An alien was eligible for suspension of deportation if: (1) he or she had been physically present in the United States for a continuous period of not less than seven years immediately preceding the date an alien filed an application for suspension of deportation. (2) he or she was a person of good moral character. (3) deportation would result in extreme hardship to either the alien or an immediate family member who was a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident.
OPINION/ORDER
Were on brief for appellee. He says the decision is procedurally flawed because he was not present at his immigration hearing. He argues that the immigration judge should have granted a continuance instead of then ordering him deported. Immigration judges have broad legal power to decide whether or not to grant continuances. Cir. 1989) (no abuse of discretion to deny continuance and proceed with hearing in alien's absence where counsel is present). There is no procedural flaw. Should have permitted him to leave voluntarily. Is highly discretionary. That statement does not imply that the immigration judge was equating
OPINION/ORDER
The removal order is deemed to be executed. We consider whether this change in regulation is valid. Why this is so is not clear. It's certainly possible to conceive of a system where a removal order remains in force permanently and may be re executed whenever the alien is found to have reentered the country illegally.
OPINION/ORDER
Which is reported at 208 F.3d 815 (9th Cir. 2000).1 Following the issuance of our opinion. The Court further held that following issuance of a final order of removal there is a
OPINION/ORDER
Which is reported at 208 F.3d 815 (9th Cir. 2000).1 Following the issuance of our opinion. The Court further held that following issuance of a final order of removal there is a
OPINION/ORDER
CV 88 00379 BJR OPINION *James Ziglar is substituted for his predecessor Doris Meissner. P. 43(c)(2). **John Ashcroft is substituted for his predecessor Janet Reno. Powell is substituted for his predecessor Madeline Albright. Circuit Judge: Plaintiffs Appellees are illegal immigrants and organizations assisting such immigrants who seek to legalize their status under a legalization program in the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (
OPINION/ORDER
I. OVERVIEW Petitioner Aurel Vata is a native and citizen of Albania. He was not in possession of a valid unexpired The Honorable James S. We also AFFIRM the Board's denial of Vata's Motion to Reopen because Petitioner failed to offer evidence that was both material and unavailable at the time of his former hearing pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(1). The petitioner was born in Puke. Vata is a citizen of Albania and holds an Albanian passport. Charging him with removability pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(1)(A) because he was not in possession of a valid unexpired immigrant visa. Vata describes that his brother was the driver for the 4 No. 06 3066 / 06 3734 Vata v. His relative was a deputy of the Democratic Party between 1992 and 1996. Vata was living in the Don Bosco Center of Shkoder. Vata and his associates were forced to leap out of the windows of the second floor in order to escape. He was unaware of any arrests made as a result of this incident. A lot of them were happy for what happened. Cause they see America is the terrorist.
OPINION/ORDER
We have consolidated for decision two petitions to review decisions by the Board of Immigration Appeals denying asylum. Are related in suggesting. We stated forthrightly:
OPINION/ORDER
Petitioner is a gainfully employed legal immigrant in her early twenties who currently studies psychology at Wayne State University in Detroit. The agency would have processed her application before Petitioner's eighteenth birthday and she would now in all likelihood be an American citizen. Petitioner was never convicted of any crime. Her parents are citizens. Her siblings are citizens. The INS had the right under section 322(a) of the Immigration and Naturalization Act (
OPINION/ORDER
The petition was later mooted by an Immigration Judge's grant of Vacchio's application for cancellation of removal. The District Court concluded that the habeas proceeding contesting Vacchio's immigration detention was not a
OPINION/ORDER
The petition was later mooted by an Immigration Judge's grant of Vacchio's application for cancellation of removal. The District Court concluded that the habeas proceeding contesting Vacchio's immigration detention was not a
OPINION/ORDER
For the reasons that follow we will grant the petition and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.1 I. Senathirajah is a fifty one year old ethnic Tamil from Sri Lanka who claims to have been tortured while detained by the Indian Peace Keeping Forces (
OPINION/ORDER
The purpose of a motion to reopen is to present new facts or evidence that may entitle the alien to 1 An alien may seek relief from a decision of an Immigration Judge by filing a motion to reopen. 8 C.F.R. § 3.23(b)(3). 16504 relief from deportation. Or to show that the alien is newly eligible for relief from deportation. We reaffirm our prior holding that this ninety day filing period is subject to equitable tolling. He was authorized to remain until May 26. The purpose of a motion to reconsider is not to raise new facts. Socop conceded that he was deportable as charged. Socop was represented by an attorney at the deportation hearing. While his asylum appeal to the BIA was pending. He explained that he was withdrawing his appeal because he
OPINION/ORDER
The purpose of a motion to reopen is to present new facts or evidence that may entitle the alien to 1 An alien may seek relief from a decision of an Immigration Judge by filing a motion to reopen. 8 C.F.R. § 3.23(b)(3). 16504 relief from deportation. Or to show that the alien is newly eligible for relief from deportation. We reaffirm our prior holding that this ninety day filing period is subject to equitable tolling. He was authorized to remain until May 26. The purpose of a motion to reconsider is not to raise new facts. Socop conceded that he was deportable as charged. Socop was represented by an attorney at the deportation hearing. While his asylum appeal to the BIA was pending. He explained that he was withdrawing his appeal because he
OPINION/ORDER
Did not have a well founded fear of future persecution 1 Congress transferred the functions of the former INS to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) on March 1. We will refer to the former INS as the
OPINION/ORDER
The INS initiated deportation proceedings on the basis of two theft offenses of which Adefemi was allegedly convicted in 1991. Eventually alleging that he was deportable on the basis of a 1991 firearms conviction as well as the theft offenses. Adefemi was found deportable on all grounds. An IJ deemed the INS to have established the firearms conviction
OPINION/ORDER
Gonzales is substituted for his predecessor. Is GRANTED in part. 1164 (9th Cir. 2005) is amended as follows: 3046 SALGADO DIAZ v. Which was completed after he returned to the United States.
OPINION/ORDER
Is the proper respondent. Circuit Judge: Jose Flores Chavez was fifteen years old when the Immigration and Naturalization Service (
OPINION/ORDER
We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1292(a)(1) & 2253. I Welch is a citizen of Panama who has been a permanent legal resident in the United States since he was ten years of age. Siblings and son are United States citizens. Welch served in the United States Navy and Naval Reserve for six years and was honorably discharged in 1994. While Welch was in State custody. The DOJ asserted that Welch was deportable pursuant to two subsections of former section 241 of the Immigration and Naturalization Act based on his State felony convictions. Id. § 1251 (a)(2)(C) (authorizing deportation for conviction for unlawfully possessing or carrying firearm).2 Soon after Welch was released from State custody. An immigration judge ordered Welch removed to Panama pursuant to former section 1 The terms
OPINION/ORDER
SalgadoDiaz alleges that his due process rights have been violated because he has been repeatedly denied an evidentiary hearing on his allegations that U.S. border patrol agents unlawfully arrested him on the streets of San Diego. Even though he was in immigration proceedings at the time. ASHCROFT tion laws that likely would have entitled him to suspension of deportation.1 If Salgado Diaz's allegations concerning his arrest and expulsion are true. He would have a substantial claim that his constitutional rights have been violated. We hold that denying him an evidentiary hearing on those allegations is itself under the circumstances present here a due process violation. He lived in San Diego with his mother and has a daughter who was born in the United States in September 1996. He has one U.S. citizen sister and two other siblings who are legal permanent residents. While he was walking on a street in San Diego. He alleges that he was on his way to pick up orange juice from a local store for a family gathering when.
OPINION/ORDER
Alberto Gonzales is automatically substituted for his predecessor. The NTA charged that Haider was subject to removal under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) for failing to comply with the conditions of his nonimmigrant status. The NTA stated that Haider was admitted to the United States in March 1994 as a nonimmigrant student. The NTA warned Haider that failure to keep his address current could result in removal in absentia: You are required to provide the INS. Notices of hearing will be mailed to this address. The functions of the INS were transferred to the newly formed Department of Homeland Security. We will refer to the INS in this opinion. 2 any date and time later directed by the Immigration Court.
OPINION/ORDER
The conforming amendments to the Immigration and Nationality Act have not been completed. If the investment is made in a
OPINION/ORDER
The INS initiated deportation proceedings on the basis of two theft offenses of which Adefemi was allegedly convicted in 1991. Eventually alleging that he was deportable on the basis of a 1991 firearms conviction as well as the theft offenses. Adefemi was found deportable on all grounds. An immigration judge (
OPINION/ORDER
Sitting by designation. 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 No. 03 2292 is reversed. The case is remanded to the district court with instructions to grant the writ. No. 03 2104 is affirmed. Raise the question of whether aliens who were erroneously denied the opportunity to apply for § 212(c) relief. That 1 The Executive Office for Immigration Review is the office within the Department of Justice that is responsible for the administrative adjudication of immigration cases. The trial and appellate entities responsible for adjudicating deportation proceedings are located within the EOIR. 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 is. § 212(c)3 relief was potentially available to most long term legal residents of the United States. Including many who were criminal aliens. 270 73 (2d Cir. 1976). 3 Section 212(c) is the direct statutory descendant of a form of relief known as
OPINION/ORDER
Were on the briefs for the appellant. Millen were on the briefs for the appellees. We must decide whether a federal district court may grant citizenship to resident aliens whose applications were rejected by the Immigration and Naturalization Service in part because of their past terrorist activities. A detailed history is in order. When the FBI discovered through intercepted phone conversations that the applicants were planning to blow up the offices of the Honorary Turkish Consul General in Philadelphia. The applicants were associ 15242 UNITED STATES v. The FBI later estimated that the bomb likely would have killed between 2000 and 3000 people. Who were Lebanese citizens and lawful permanent residents of the United States. Were duly convicted of various federal explosives offenses. Yacoubian was twenty one and Hovsepian was twenty four. Thus both were eligible for sentencing under the Federal Youth Corrections Act (FYCA). Because Yacoubian was under twenty two. Who was over twenty two. The court was required to sentence him as an adult unless it concluded that he would benefit from a sentence under the Act. § 4216.
OPINION/ORDER
Was convicted of federal crimes in the Northern District of Ohio and incarcerated in Kentucky. Roman was transferred from a federal prison in Kentucky to an INS detention facility in the Western District of Louisiana. Although Roman was being detained in the Western District of Louisiana at the time. He filed the habeas corpus petition in the district where he resided prior to his incarceration and where he was convicted of the crimes underlying his removal the Northern District of Ohio. We VACATE the district court's decision to grant Roman habeas corpus relief and REMAND to the district court with instructions to determine whether the Cleveland District Director and the INS Commissioner are proper respondents to Roman's petition. In the event that the district court concludes that these officials are not proper respondents. Roman is a 46 year old native and citizen of the Dominican Republic. Was last admitted to the United States on February 8. Roman is married and has six children who are United States citizens.
OPINION/ORDER
Sitting by designation. 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 No. 03 2292 is reversed. The case is remanded to the district court with instructions to grant the writ. No. 03 2104 is affirmed. Raise the question of whether aliens who were erroneously denied the opportunity to apply for § 212(c) relief. That 1 The Executive Office for Immigration Review is the office within the Department of Justice that is responsible for the administrative adjudication of immigration cases. The trial and appellate entities responsible for adjudicating deportation proceedings are located within the EOIR. 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 is. § 212(c)3 relief was potentially available to most long term legal residents of the United States. Including many who were criminal aliens. 270 73 (2d Cir. 1976). 3 Section 212(c) is the direct statutory descendant of a form of relief known as
OPINION/ORDER
Circuit Judge: The principal issue in this case concerns whether the mandatory requirement of issue exhaustion in asylum cases is also jurisdictional. Nor is it enough to permit a panel of our court to reconsider past holdings that exhaustion of some asylum questions. Is jurisdictional. It is a reason. As will be apparent. The 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 question is determinative of the asylum case before us.1 Petitioner Lin Zhong (
OPINION/ORDER
Denying his petition for a writ of habeas corpus.1 Sierra is a 41 year old Cuban national who arrived in the United States in 1980 as part of the Mariel boatlift during which over 125. Immigration officials stopped Sierra and most Mariel Cubans at the border as they were
OPINION/ORDER
The principal issue in this case concerns whether the mandatory requirement of issue exhaustion in asylum cases is also jurisdictional. Nor is it enough to permit a panel of our court to reconsider past holdings that exhau stion of some asylum questions. Is jurisdictional. It is a reason. As will be apparent. The question is determinative of the asylum case before us. 1465 U.N.T.S. 85.1 Lin's removal from the United States was first ordered in 1994. Lin had failed to establish that he had been persecuted or was likely to be persecuted by the Chinese government on account of his political opinion. In cases such as this in which deportation proceedings were initiated prior to April 1. We will use the terms
OPINION/ORDER
The en banc court decides that it will not overturn United States v. The Fourth and Fifth Circuits have also addressed this issue and joined the First Circuit in holding that section 3583(d) does not permit district courts to order deportation as a condition of supervised release. INS agents received a
OPINION/ORDER
Eleazar Morel petitions for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) because he was declared ineligible to apply for relief from deportation under section 212(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). Neither of which this circuit has previously addressed: whether the INS erred in imposing a requirement of seven consecutive years' domicile after the alien was admitted to the United States as a lawful permanent resident and whether the domicile of a parent may be imputed to his or her child in appropriate cases for purposes of meeting the seven year domicile requirement. I. Morel is a native and citizen of the Dominican Republic. He was admitted to the United States as a lawful permanent resident on December 20. 1989 when he was seventeen years old. Morel was arrested on August 24. That Morel was also convicted of
OPINION/ORDER
Baylson Because we have converted the present appeal into a petition for direct review. We are required to substitute the Attorney General for the respondent (William F. Andrea Patricia Duvall is a native and citizen of Jamaica. Her request was granted. She became a permanent resident in 1993. 3 Her days in this country were not all tourism and romance. She was charged as an alien subject to deportation based on convictions of crimes involving moral turpitude. A hearing was held before an immigration judge on November 16. The sole witness called by the INS was Duvall. She asserted a privilege against selfincrimination under the Fifth Amendment and would neither confirm nor deny any of the allegations in the order to show cause.1 The INS was caught off guard by this maneuver. The document was ruled inadmissible for noncompliance with local rules requiring submission of evidence at least ten days before the hearing. The immigration judge found that there was not
Mejia has filed a petition for review in this Court appealing the BIA's denial of his motion to reopen.
While his motion to reopen was still pending before the BIA. We affirm the district court's dismissal of Mejia's § 2241 petition but do so because Mejia's § 2241 petition is now moot.
I. Facts and Procedural History
Mejia is a native of Honduras who lawfully entered the United States as a nonimmigrant visitor on November 17. Mejia was charged in Florida state court with possession of cocaine. Mejia was advised that his criminal record would be sealed upon completion of his probationary sentence.
Prior to his first deportation hearing. The BIA found that Mejia was within a class of aliens who could be deported based on a controlled substance conviction and therefore concluded that the immigration judge properly found that Mejia was ineligible for a suspension of deportation.
C. Mejia is a Fugitive from May 1995 Until September 1997
In a letter dated April 12.
OPINION/ORDER
Violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and were contrary to the Immigration and Nationality Act (
Mejia has filed a petition for review in this Court appealing the BIA's denial of his motion to reopen.
While his motion to reopen was still pending before the BIA. We affirm the district court's dismissal of Mejia's § 2241 petition but do so because Mejia's § 2241 petition is now moot.
I. Facts and Procedural History
Mejia is a native of Honduras who lawfully entered the United States as a nonimmigrant visitor on November 17. Mejia was charged in Florida state court with possession of cocaine. Mejia was advised that his criminal record would be sealed upon completion of his probationary sentence.
Prior to his first deportation hearing. The BIA found that Mejia was within a class of aliens who could be deported based on a controlled substance conviction and therefore concluded that the immigration judge properly found that Mejia was ineligible for a suspension of deportation.
C. Mejia is a Fugitive from May 1995 Until September 1997
In a letter dated April 12.
OPINION/ORDER
Gonzales is substituted for his predecessor. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Was
OPINION/ORDER
ASHCROFT 11973 Immigration Appeals (BIA or
OPINION/ORDER
ORDER As the Petitioner Appellant is now a fugitive from custody. The appeal is DISMISSED. IT IS SO ORDERED. Such decision making power rests in the hands of a judicial officer. 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(6) provides in relevant part:
OPINION/ORDER
Is the Regulation a Permissible Interpretation of the Statute? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 VI. He argues that the BIA should have granted his motion to reopen because of ineffective assistance of counsel. Zheng argues that his previous attorney was ineffective because he failed to file an appellate brief with the BIA after an Immigration Judge (IJ) denied his application for asylum. Zheng argues that the BIA should have granted his 3 request to remand his case so that an IJ might consider his petitions for adjustment of status. He alleges that he is covered by the Chinese Student Protection Act of 1992. The government responds that Zheng is an
OPINION/ORDER
Gonzales is substituted for his predecessor. Claiming that the detention was in violation of the Fourth Amendment and seeking damages. Rocha's initial contention is that. The courts are closed to the Sissokos. 1 purThe INS was abolished on March 1. Its functions were transferred to the Department of Homeland Security.
OPINION/ORDER
Were on brief. Griffiths challenges whether the
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > United States v. The <i>en banc</i> court decides that it will not overturn <i>United States v. </i> the Fourth and Fifth Circuits have also addressed this issue and joined the First Circuit in holding that section 3583(d) does not permit district courts to order deportation as a condition of supervised release. <i>See United States v. INS agents received a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="776"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/aug96/94-8154.ma2.html">UNITED STATES V. OBOH<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>United States v. The <i>en banc</i> court decides that it will not overturn <i>United States v. </i> the Fourth and Fifth Circuits have also addressed this issue and joined the First Circuit in holding that section 3583(d) does not permit district courts to order deportation as a condition of supervised release. <i>See United States v. INS agents received a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="774"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/03a0432p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Denko argues that it was an abuse of discretion for the IJ not to reopen removal proceedings when Denko introduced evidence that her failure to attend her second master calendar hearing resulted from her attorney's ineffective assistance of counsel and not from any decision on Denko's part to abandon her request for asylum. Violates established administrative law because it is inconsistent with other provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="774"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/04/06/031122P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Petitioner was ordered to appear at an exclusion hearing in San Antonio. Although there was no dispute that she had violated the law. The government does not contend that petitioner is ineligible for a discretionary waiver on that basis. Brief for Respondent at 7 n.3. 2 1 The rescheduled hearing was set for August 18. The hearing was to be conducted telephonically. Petitioner and the government attorney were duly notified to appear at the INS District Office in Kansas City. She was
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="774"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/July2003/014043p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Rita Dipeppe challenges the District Court's ruling that she is not entitled to seek relief from removal under INA § 212(c).2 For the reasons that follow. We will reverse the District Court's order as to § 212(h) and affirm it as to § 212(c). 1. INA § 212(h) is codified at 8 U.S.C. § 1182(h). 2. INA § 212(c) was codified at 8 U.S.C. § 1182(c) (1995). 3 I. INA §§ 212(h) AND 212(c) INA § 212(h) previously gave the Attorney General the discretion to waive an alien's inadmissibility for crimes of moral turpitude if an alien was a spouse. That provision of the INA now removes this discretion in the case of aliens who were previously admitted as permanent residents and had either been convicted of an aggravated felony or had not resided in the United States for seven continuous years. INA § 212(h).3 The statute applies only to aliens who have the status of legal permanent resident (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="772"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0234n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The parties have waived oral argument. This Court unanimously agreed that it was not needed in this * The Honorable James S. Are natives of India and citizens of Kenya. Jyotsanaben Patel and Nayana Patel are beneficiaries of his asylum application. Saying they were persecuted in 2 No. 03 3930 Patel v. An interpreter was present at the hearing. This hearing was the interpreter's first time translating. Was the primary witness. Patel testified that he and his family were afraid of leaving their house after 7:00 p.m. The Patels were victims of an armed robbery of their home. Patel recounted that his wife and the children were tied up during the robbery. That he was not home. Petitioner's home was robbed on several other occasions. While no one was home. He testified that this incident occurred in 1994 while he and his brother in law were repairing a flat tire. Patel is a civil engineer. Who were Kenyans of African descent. He said that the children were taunted and harassed while heading to school. Robbing them just because they were Indian.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="770"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//july2001/99-15373.opn.html">FERNANDEZ-BERNAL V. ATTORNEY GEN. OF THE UNITED STATESN (7/19/2001, NO. 99-15373)<BR></A><BR>
A foreign national who is a permanent lawful resident of this country. He was ordered removed from the United States. That removal order was affirmed by the Board of Immigration Appeals. Contending that the expungement of his state court conviction means he should not be removed. </SPAN><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="770"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/july2001/99-15373.opn.html">FERNANDEZ-BERNAL V. ATTORNEY GEN. OF THE UNITED STATESN (7/19/2001, NO. 99-15373)<BR></A><BR>
A foreign national who is a permanent lawful resident of this country. He was ordered removed from the United States. That removal order was affirmed by the Board of Immigration Appeals. Contending that the expungement of his state court conviction means he should not be removed. </SPAN><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="770"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/03a0293p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Which is founded 1 The Ho norable D avid D . Castellano claims that he was effectively denied a fair hearing in violation of his due process rights because his counsel was not allowed to make an opening and closing statement at his removal hearing. When he was sixteen years old. I have a 13 on my chin. The tear drop below the corner of my left eye signifies the memory of a friend (called
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="767"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/383449778AF3EEC688256DA3007C140B/$file/0335096.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: The question we must answer is whether the United States can remove aliens to Somalia. A country that does not have a functioning government to accept them. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 and 2253. The INS was abolished and its functions transferred to the newly created Department of Homeland Security. Sought an order enjoining the INS from removing them to Somalia because there is no government in Somalia to accept them. Petitioners also sought certification of a nationwide habeas and declaratory class composed of all persons in the United States who are subject to orders of removal to Somalia. BACKGROUND There are four named petitioners on appeal: Yusuf Ali Ali. All four were ordered removed from the United States on various dates in 2000 and 2001. Each had been released from INS custody because removal to Somalia
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="767"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/9B5F7BD118D0ACC588256E5A00707CC9/$file/9771038.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We consider whether an alien's right to equal protection is violated if. The Immigration and Naturalization Service (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="767"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/98D00A2A91B2B2BD88256AC700591F3F/$file/9771038.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We consider whether an alien's right to equal protection is violated if. The Immigration and Naturalization Service (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="765"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/022142.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Maria Belbruno and the four children are natives and citizens of Guatemala. Juan Belbruno is a native and citizen of Argentina. All six members of the Belbruno family conceded that they were removable as charged. Maria Belbruno stated that she was seeking asylum on behalf of her family due to numerous threats that they had received
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="765"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/041575np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
McClure is sitting by designation from the Middle District of Pennsylvania. * 2 Joel M. That appeal is consolidated with his appeal of a final Order of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania entering judgment against him in a declaratory action Johnson filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2201 (05 4569) in an attempt to have that court declare that he is a citizen of the United States.2 1 Appellant's identity and parentage are vigorously contested. Appellant claims he is actually
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="765"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=99-2357.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Sanchez</U> was on brief. Were on brief. Claims that he was eligible to apply for suspension of deportation. Are eligible for suspension of deportation if they meet the familiar requirements of INA § 244. Whereas those placed in deportation proceedings after that date are eligible only for cancellation of removal under IIRIRA § 340(a)(3). Although the INS questions this assertion in its brief the OSC was never produced in the course of subsequent proceedings we assume <U>arguendo</U> the veracity of the petitioner's account.</FONT></P> <P><FONT FACE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="761"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/F94C1068C3BB1C7C88256F810079DEF9/$file/0335548.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is hereby amended. The amended opinion is filed concurrently with this order. Rivera alleges that he is a United States citizen who was wrongly removed to Mexico. That his Due Process rights were violated during removal proceedings before Immigration Judge Anna Ho. That he is entitled to a declaration by the District Court that he is a United States citizen. FACTUAL BACKGROUND1 Salvador Rivera was born at University North Hospital in Portland. When Rivera was approximately three months old. Eloisa and Logino were having
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="761"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/230AB1980593B93D88256F310057C4E2/$file/0335548.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Rivera alleges that he is a United States citizen who was wrongly removed to Mexico. That his Due Process rights were violated during removal proceedings before Immigration Judge Anna Ho. That he is entitled to a declaration by the District Court that he is a United States citizen. ASHCROFT 14609 FACTUAL BACKGROUND1 Salvador Rivera was born at University North Hospital in Portland. When Rivera was approximately three months old. Eloisa and Logino were having
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="761"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-2445.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Were on brief. <SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="759"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-1037.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Have been perpetrated by both the armed insurgents and the government's security forces. <SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="759"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/June1994/94a0756p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We are asked to examine the Immigration and Naturalization Service's (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="759"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Aug1996/96a1397p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Applied for and was denied political asylum by the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS). I. Factual and Procedural Background Petitioner is a former soldier in the Romanian Army. Marincas asserts that he was arrested. Which is apparently comprised almost entirely of former members of the old Communist regime. He was detained as an excludable alien because of his stowaway status. At that time he was not informed of his right to be represented by counsel in his asylum interview or of the availability of free legal services. His asylum claim was denied. The petition was dismissed after the INS conceded the inadequacy of the first proceeding and remanded the case for new proceedings. Petitioner was interviewed by the same asylum officer who had previously denied his claim. Petitioner was represented by counsel at the second interview. His counsel was only allowed several minutes to question Petitioner and to advocate on his behalf. A third interview was conducted by another asylum officer after Petitioner's counsel objected to the INS about the second interview being conducted by the same asylum officer.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="759"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/F128F6A301BD8CA588256CDE00786B01/$file/0270003.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Iturribarria further alleges that his former counsel was ineffective. That he is therefore entitled to equitable tolling sufficient to convert his untimely motion to reopen into a timely one. Where the facts surrounding allegedly ineffective representation by counsel were unavailable to the petitioner at an earlier stage of the administrative process. Motions before the BIA based on claims of ineffective assistance of counsel are properly deemed motions to reopen. Then he is entitled to equitable tolling to convert his untimely motion to reopen into a timely one. Iturribarria were to establish at a hearing that his assertions concerning his attorney's conduct are true. Then his former counsel's performance was so ineffective that it denied him due process in previous proceedings. Iturribarria is a Mexican citizen who currently lives in Mission Hills. Stating that he was subject to deportation. Iturribarria was employed as a cook at Tacos Tacos. An attorney whose office was located nearby. The IJ further warned that if the application for suspension of deportation were not timely filed.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="759"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0306n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Et al. are citizens of Albania. Ivzi is Adriatik's father. Ivzjol and Miranda are Adriatik's wife and child. They came from a wealthy family and were involved in political activities during and after the communist government. Much of it under the communist regime that was hostile to the Nazarko family and other
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="759"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/5072CA9F7CBF2E4988256E240077B624/$file/0272978.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: Petitioner Jesus Aaron Cazarez Gutierrez (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="757"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Nov1996/96a1453p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
He contends that Immigration and Naturalization Service (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="757"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/E3B5DC2FF60C4F0C88256EEF0056FFB3/$file/0273294.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We hold that the reinstatement provision is not impermissibly retroactive when applied to deportation orders that occurred before the passage of the 1996 revisions to the INA. The INS ceased to exist and its functions were transferred to the newly created Department of Homeland Security (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="757"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/FE9C678CD8E63FA488256D5D007C8167/$file/0117525.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: Javier Noriega Lopez is a citizen and national of Mexico admitted to the United States as a lawful permanent resident alien about thirty six years ago. NoriegaLopez was convicted of felony possession of heroin for sale in violation of California Health and Safety Code § 11351. The Immigration Judge (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="754"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/03a0305p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
That delayed a decision on Aoun's application for many years and ultimately prejudiced his ability to have his application for suspension of deportation decided before more stringent immigration rules came into effect. Aoun raises three issues on appeal: (1) whether the denial of the reopening of his application for suspension of deportation based on the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="754"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-1135.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
P.C.</SPAN> was on brief. Were on brief. We hold that under the new law such stays are guided by essentially the same standard that informs the grant or denial of preliminary injunctions. Only after we have set the stage do we turn to the issues that confront us.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="754"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/4ABAD4869737AF6B882573320059C12E/$file/0574132.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
She contends that the BIA's holding that she was ineligible to apply for suspension of deportation under former Immigration and Nationality Act (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="752"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=97-1953.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
United States Department of Justice were on brief. Now is subject to deportation because he has committed crimes of moral turpitude such as theft. While Goncalves' application was still pending. That at least those aliens whose applications were pending on the date of AEDPA's enactment. Goncalves' application was dismissed without being heard by the BIA and he was taken into custody by federal officials. This he was required to do by the precedent of this court. Was correct in the interpretation of the statute. He should have filed in the court of appeals. Her decision is entitled to deference. The first is which federal court. That Congress neither explicitly nor by implication repealed the grant of jurisdiction in 28 U.S.C. 2241 to issue writs of habeas corpus to persons in federal custody which the federal district courts have had since 1789 and which has always been available in immigration cases. If there is jurisdiction. Is of a type traditionally resolved by the courts. The second major set of issues addresses the merits: is the Attorney General correct in her interpretation that AEDPA 440(d).
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="752"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/365842A3EF96D846882570D00002C1E7/$file/0373562.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
GONZALES 15815 Cuevas Gaspar is removable. Cuevas Gaspar was convicted for being an accomplice to residential burglary under Washington law. Cuevas Gaspar asserts that the BIA erred in concluding that he was removable because his conviction constituted a crime of moral turpitude. That he have resided in the United States continuously for seven years
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="752"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/031537p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This immigration case presents two questions of law: (1) whether we have jurisdiction over certain discretionary denials by the Bureau of Immigration Appeals of motions to remand under the transitional rules of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996. We conclude that we have jurisdiction over the type of denial the BIA exercised in this case. That the appropriate standard of review for the fact cited in that denial is substantial evidence. We will vacate the BIA's denial as an abuse of discretion and remand this case for further explanation and development of the record. 3 I. A. Mykhaylo Korytnyuk is a native and citizen of the Ukraine who came to the United States on June 8. Korytnyuk through counsel admitted that he had overstayed his visa and was held to be deportable. While his direct appeal was pending. Korytnyuk received an approved immigrant petition for alien worker. 2 With that The INS is now the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services within the Department of Homeland Security. 6 U.S.C. § 271 (2004).
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="752"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0027p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
BACKGROUND Petitioner is a thirty nine year old native and citizen of Iran. He was admitted to the U.S. on June 17. Was placed in deportation proceedings. In the aftermath of the Iranian Revolution (after the Shah was overthrown and the U.S. hostages were taken. Who was 16 years old at the time. Its history is studded with anti Western activity. MEK is a terrorist group currently designated by the Secretary of State as a Foreign Terrorist Organization under INA section 219. Petitioner's stated reason for affiliating was the religious nature of the organization that corresponded with his personal upbringing. Petitioner asserts that he was never a formal member of MEK. Petitioner was arrested in Ghom. He was charged with possession of a gun and a hand grenade during a demonstration and sentenced to life in prison after a thirty This Court takes judicial notice of the fact that today Ghom is a city of approximately 800. 000 people located 100 miles southwest of Tehran (pop. 8 million). 1 There was a confusion during Petitioner's testimony about what type of an election he participated in.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="750"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-1569.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
P.C.</SPAN> was on brief. Were on brief. An applicant must provide
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="750"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/01/01-3799.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The appellants were given the opportunity to apply for immigrant visas and thereby a chance to become citizens. Once the forms were filled out. All that remained was for the INS to adjudicate the appellants' status and either grant or deny the applications. Once the year was up. The INS informed the appellants that their applications were denied. Rather they were denied simply because they were not heard within the applicable time period. The INS informed the appellants that they would have to reapply and hope to win the lottery a second time to gain citizenship. The Iddir case was heard by Judge Gottschall. The Kudina case was heard by Judge Guzman. This program was instituted by Congress to distribute visas to persons from countries that historically have low rates of immigration to the United States. 8 U.S.C. § 1153(c)(1). The diversity visas are then allotted. Whereby only a certain number of visas are available to the immigrants from the low admission states or regions. 000 visas were made available in each period. 59 Fed.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="748"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAyLTQ2MzFfb3BuLnBkZg==/02-4631_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Because petitioner's application for asylum was found to be untimely by the Immigration Judge (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="748"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/July1997/97a1645p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
(3) by electing to stay in the United States and to seek asylum after being told by the FBI that he was in
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="748"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/6503E1E6576FAFB488256E5A00707D16/$file/9971405.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The Immigration Judge (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="748"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/July1997/97a1645p.htm">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
(3) by <p>electing to stay in the United States and to seek asylum <p>after being told by the FBI that he was in
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="748"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/16CA51A43DF6097588256AE8007F27CE/$file/9971405.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The Immigration Judge (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="748"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAyLTQ2MzFfb3BuLnBkZg==/02-4631_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Because petitioner's application for asylum was found to be untimely by the Immigration Judge (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="746"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//sept2002/00-12442.ord.html">BALOGUN V. U.S. ATT'Y GEN. (9/10/2002, NO. 00-12442)<BR></A><BR>
Circuit Judge:</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="746"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/7D89171B1FE4E91D88256EA10083B0B9/$file/0271925.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Mariscal Sandoval contends that he should have been placed in deportation rather than exclusion proceedings because he had
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="746"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/sept2002/00-12442.ord.html">BALOGUN V. U.S. ATT'Y GEN. (9/10/2002, NO. 00-12442)<BR></A><BR>
Circuit Judge:</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="746"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0369a-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
For which he was later pardoned pursuant to Canadian law. Which was later quashed by a Canadian appellate court. Gonzales Page 2 Petitioner is a native and citizen of Canada. He was indicted in Ontario. His attempt to adjust his status was denied. Seeking to have that conviction quashed. The Petitioner's application for adjustment of status was again denied and removal proceedings were initiated. Concluding that the court's action was solely for rehabilitative purposes. The BIA decision is a final agency decision. 8 C.F.R. § 1241.1. The Petitioner's Petition for Review was filed in a timely manner pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1). The conviction is not eliminated for immigration purposes. This interpretation of the law is consistent with that of other circuits and with our own interpretation. 9 F.3d 432 (6th Cir. 1 The functions of the Immigration and Naturalization Service have been transferred to the Department of Homeland Security. A conviction is vacated for rehabilitative purposes where state law provides a means for the trial court to enable a Defendant to avoid certain continuing effects under state law from that conviction.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="744"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/12/97-2379.htm">97-2379 -- U.S. V. WITTGENSTEIN -- 12/16/1998<BR></A><BR>
Wittgenstein should not be deported as an
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="744"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0248p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
For which he was later pardoned pursuant to Canadian law. Which was later quashed by a Canadian appellate court. Petitioner is a native and citizen of Canada. He was indicted in Ontario. His attempt to adjust his status was denied. Seeking to have that conviction quashed. The Petitioner's application for adjustment of status was again denied and removal proceedings were initiated. Concluding that the court's action was solely for rehabilitative purposes. The BIA decision is a final agency decision. 8 C.F.R. § 1241.1. The Petitioner's Petition for Review was filed in a timely manner pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1). The conviction is not eliminated for immigration purposes. This interpretation of the law is consistent with that of other circuits and with our own interpretation. 1 The functions of the Immigration and Naturalization Service have been transferred to the Department of Homeland Security. A conviction is vacated for rehabilitative purposes where state law provides a means for the trial court to enable a Defendant to avoid certain continuing effects under state law from that conviction.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="744"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/02/02-2475.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We have substituted the Attorney General for the Immigration and Naturalization Service (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="744"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA0LTM2MDYtY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/04-3606-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Was awarded compensatory damages for lost earnings. At least to the extent such earnings were based on pay rates in the United States rather than in the worker's native country. Affordable and Mountain are now joined by third party defendant Silva. 3 In addition. Arguing that the document relied on by these third party plaintiffs to support their indemnification claim is not an enforceable contract. Is not authorized by IRCA under any circumstance. (2) it was the employer rather than the worker who knowingly violated IRCA in arranging for the employment. (3) the jury was instructed to consider the worker's removeability in deciding what. Because we conclude that appellants' and cross appellants' other arguments are also without merit. Madeira's Employment and Injury Plaintiff Jose Raimundo Madeira 1 is a citizen of Brazil who illegally entered the United States in 1998. Madeira was earning approximately $15 per hour in the United States and working as many as 50 hours per week. Such action was apparently unnecessary given his brother's willingness to hire him despite knowing Madeira's undocumented status.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="744"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0327n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
His failure to file that application by the deadline should have been excused. Removal proceedings against him were administratively closed. His removal case was accordingly put back on the active docket. Cabrera Ramos still appeared without counsel because he apparently
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="741"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/jan2000/98-3689.man.html">ALANIS-BUSTAMANTE V. RENO (1/25/2000, NO. 98-3689)<BR></A><BR>
Removal proceedings against an alien have begun when the INS has served him with an order to show cause and has lodged a warrant of detainer against him. Bustamante was convicted in the U.S. He was sentenced to thirty three (33) months imprisonment and four years probation.</P> <P> On June 28. While Bustamante was still incarcerated for his drug conviction. The INS also issued a warrant of detainer notifying prison authorities that Bustamante was to be turned over to the INS after the period of his incarceration ended. The show cause order itself informed Bustamante that the INS intended to initiate removal<A HREF=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="741"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//jan2000/98-3689.man.html">ALANIS-BUSTAMANTE V. RENO (1/25/2000, NO. 98-3689)<BR></A><BR>
Removal proceedings against an alien have begun when the INS has served him with an order to show cause and has lodged a warrant of detainer against him. Bustamante was convicted in the U.S. He was sentenced to thirty three (33) months imprisonment and four years probation.</P> <P> On June 28. While Bustamante was still incarcerated for his drug conviction. The INS also issued a warrant of detainer notifying prison authorities that Bustamante was to be turned over to the INS after the period of his incarceration ended. The show cause order itself informed Bustamante that the INS intended to initiate removal<A HREF=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="741"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/02/98-1333.htm">98-1333 -- DACHO V. GREENE -- 02/29/2000<BR></A><BR>
Duy Dac Ho (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="741"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Mar2000/995053.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
1997 is governed by the transitional rules of IIRIRA. Whereas judicial review of those commenced thereafter are governed by the permanent judicial review amendments of IIRIRA (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="741"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0458n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Petitioner Khader Qumsieh is a citizen of Jordan who was paroled into the United States on May 14. The Immigration and Naturalization Service (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="741"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19983689.OPN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Removal proceedings against an alien have begun when the INS has served him with an order to show cause and has lodged a warrant of detainer against him. Bustamante was convicted in the U.S. He was sentenced to thirty three (33) months imprisonment and four years probation. While Bustamante was still incarcerated for his drug conviction. The INS also issued a warrant of detainer notifying prison authorities that Bustamante was to be turned over to the INS after the period of his incarceration ended. The show cause order itself informed Bustamante that the INS intended to initiate removal1 proceedings against him and indicated that he was removable pursuant to INA § 241(a)(2)(A)(iii). Deportation proceedings are referred to as
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="741"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19983689.MAN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Removal proceedings against an alien have begun when the INS has served him with an order to show cause and has lodged a warrant of detainer against him. Bustamante was convicted in the U.S. He was sentenced to thirty three (33) months imprisonment and four years probation. While Bustamante was still incarcerated for his drug conviction. The INS also issued a warrant of detainer notifying prison authorities that Bustamante was to be turned over to the INS after the period of his incarceration ended. The show cause order itself informed Bustamante that the INS intended to initiate removal1 proceedings against him and indicated that he was removable pursuant to INA § 241(a)(2)(A)(iii). Which is a prerequisite to the formal commencement of removal proceedings. Deportation proceedings are referred to as
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="739"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Jul2001/003393.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Which was denied. We conclude that the Lozada requirements are a reasonable exercise of the Board's discretion. We will affirm the denial of Lu's motion to reopen his immigration proceedings. I. Xu Yong Lu is a native and citizen of the People's Republic of China (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="739"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/FCBC8852737F7208882571B100812DBF/$file/0274417.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Gonzales is substituted for his predecessor. Is withdrawn. GONZALES 8047 All pending Petitions for Panel Rehearing and for Rehearing En Banc are denied as moot. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Was
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="739"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/043837p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
In this case we are asked to decide when a vacated criminal conviction remains a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="739"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/03a0418p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Which requires the Attorney General to detain immigrants who have committed certain crimes. Ly was convicted of credit card fraud. Ly was involved in a checkkiting scheme. He was convicted of bank fraud. Ly was kept in detention for 500 days. The INS asserted that Ly was subject to removal1 from the United States because he was an alien convicted of two crimes involving moral turpitude. He was an alien convicted of an aggravated felony. With another charge that Ly was an alien convicted of an aggravated felony. The hearing was rescheduled for September 21. Actual removal of Ly from the United States was never a possibility during this process. Vietnam has not and does not accept deportees because there is no repatriation agreement between the United States and Vietnam. 1 1999 hearing. The immigration judge found that Ly was removable. The hearing was continued to April 28. Granting habeas relief unless a bond hearing was held. The immigration judge determined that he did not have the statutory authority to release Ly from detention.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="739"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2003/04/02-9516.htm">02-9516 -- MICKEVICIUTE V. IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE -- 04/28/2003<BR></A><BR>
Circuit Judge. <p> <center></center> <p> <hr align=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="737"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/02/02-1209.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
A decision that was affirmed by the Board of Immigration Appeals (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="737"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200510966.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
In September 1988 he was arrested on state drug charges in Newark. In March 1991 while those charges were pending. Savoury pleaded guilty to and was convicted of possession of cocaine with intent to distribute in the third degree. (The cases sometimes refer to this status as simply
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="735"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/30F60B75A03ADEFD88256E5A00707BB8/$file/9970739.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Who are natives and citizens of the Philippines. Their claims were consolidated for hearing and denied by an immigration judge (IJ). It is the IJ's decision that we review for substantial evidence. Are natives and citizens of the Philippines. Their cases were consolidated for a hearing on the merits. Petitioners' claims for asylum or other relief both are dependent on the claim of Felicitas. Is based on her testimony that. She and her daughter were raped by two armed men. She asserted 8099 that the two rapists were members of a Marxist guerrilla organization. That the attack was on account of an imputed political opinion arising from her father's position as a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="735"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=99-2283.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With whom <U>Pampanin Law Offices</U> was on brief. Were on brief. Nelson also claims that the BIA erred in its finding that she was ineligible for asylum and withholding of deportation under 8 U.S.C. §§ . Her application was made without the assistance of counsel.</FONT></P> <P><FONT FACE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="735"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/06/01-9522.htm">01-9522 -- KRASTEV V. IMMIGRATION & NATURALIZATION SERVICE -- 06/17/2002<BR></A><BR>
We have jurisdiction over this appeal pursuant to Section 106(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). We conclude that the Board erred in determining that the evidence of changed conditions was sufficient to rebut a presumption of a well founded fear of future persecution. The applicant has the burden to prove his or her statutory eligibility for asylum by establishing that he or she is a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="735"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/6B5128047B90CFA088256A76007B13E8/$file/9970739.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Who are natives and citizens of the Philippines. Their claims were consolidated for hearing and denied by an immigration judge (IJ). It is the IJ's decision that we review for substantial evidence. Are natives and citizens of the Philippines. Their cases were consolidated for a hearing on the merits. Petitioners' claims for asylum or other relief both are dependent on the claim of Felicitas. Is based on her testimony that. She and her daughter were raped by two armed men. She asserted 8099 that the two rapists were members of a Marxist guerrilla organization. That the attack was on account of an imputed political opinion arising from her father's position as a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="733"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/F46CE5BC93D7551988256E5A00707B9F/$file/9970274.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Concurrence by Judge Beezer *John Ashcroft is substituted for his predecessor. The Immigration and Naturalization Service (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="733"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/1A3764591F9EF01F88256A6F0059BBAA/$file/9970274.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Concurrence by Judge Beezer *John Ashcroft is substituted for his predecessor. The Immigration and Naturalization Service (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="733"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-1058.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Was on brief. Were on brief. Are natives and citizens of Albania. Under which aliens from certain countries were allowed to board a plane bound for the United States and be admitted to the United States without a visa pursuant to agreements with transportation carriers. Availability of the transit without visa privilege at the time in question depended on nationality and the privilege was available to Albanians only in a restricted form. Greek nationals were not subject to such a restriction. The Ymeris then admitted the documents were false. </SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="733"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/July2002/013294.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
She claims to have been persecuted because of her membership in two political organizations in Cameroon that represent the interests of the English speaking minority population. The BIA's decision 2 was based on a finding that Ms. Obianuju had submitted fraudulent documents and therefore was not credible. Obianuju was persecuted because of her political opinions and faces a clear probability of persecution if returned to Cameroon. We will accordingly grant the petition for review. She is a member of the Englishspeaking minority population. She claims to have been persecuted because of her political opinion. Following is a summary of the account presented by Ms. Obianuju's parents and other family members were very active members of SDF. Obianuju tells of three times that she was jailed and physically abused because of her political activism. Obianuju claims that she was then dragged through the gravel on her knees and taken by force to Bamenda Central Prison where she was beaten on the soles of her feet and on her knees with police sticks.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="730"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0117p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Alexandrov was born on August 21. Is a native and citizen of Bulgaria. The immigration court agreed that the documents were fraudulent and that Alexandrov had submitted 1 No. 04 4458 Alexandrov v. I. Alexandrov's application for asylum is based on his membership in Omo Ilinden. Alexandrov claims that he was arrested. He further claims that he was subpoenaed by the Bulgarian authorities to appear in court. Alexandrov claims to have learned that he was tried and sentenced in absentia to prison for five years. The INS then terminated his asylum status based on
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="730"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/jan98/95-8238.man.html">SAIYID V. INS (1/12/1998, NO. 95-8238)<BR></A><BR>
Circuit Judge:</P> <P> This case is before us on a petition to review a final order of deportation. The petitioners are foreign nationals who have admitted deportability but who seek relief under 8 U.S.C. § 1253(h) (1994) (withholding of deportation). Their motion is denied.</P> <P><CENTER>I.</CENTER> </P> <P> Iftikhar Saiyid and his wife. Are citizens of Bangladesh. They decided to claim for the first time that they were refugees from Bangladesh. Saiyid was the subject of an outstanding arrest warrant for embezzlement in Oman and therefore statutorily ineligible for asylum. <EM>See</EM> 8 C.F.R. § 208.8(f)(1)(v) (1990) (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="730"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/CCFB5DD4B6D6347088256BE2007530B3/$file/0070595.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
(2) was an alien without a valid immigrant visa. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1105a(a). 1195 n.4 (9th Cir. 2000).1 Our jurisdiction is not foreclosed by IIRIRA § 309(c) (4)(G) which precludes judicial review in cases where an alien is inadmissible or deportable by reason of having committed a controlled substance offense. We have repeatedly held that we retain jurisdiction to determine whether an alien in fact committed acts that would trigger IIRIRA § 309(c) (4)(G). Because the central issue here is whether Pazcoguin in fact admitted to committing the essential elements of a controlled substance violation. We have jurisdiction. Was issued a United States immigrant visa by the American Embassy in Manilla. Pazcoguin This case is governed by the transitional rules of IIRIRA. Until he was approximately 21 years old. Pazcoguin was paroled into the United States for deferred inspection. Inspector Kalin terminated the proceeding and determined that Pazcoguin was excludable from the United States because of his prior use of marijuana in the Philippines.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="730"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-1922.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
As it was then named. The day before the scheduled hearing Georcely's counsel called the immigration court and was informed that the court had not yet received the motion.</P> <P> Neither Georcely nor his counsel appeared at the April 29. As is permitted by the statute. Where he was residing. The apparent delay in the mail and failure of the immigration court to approve the transfer were.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="730"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/E9E6A16AA18FD2B288256C870062B930/$file/0171266.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
INS Immigration Appeals' denial of his motion to reopen deportation proceedings after he was ordered deported in absentia pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252b(c) (1995). We have jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1005a (1996). Was admitted to the United States on or around January 5. Dobrota's asylum application was denied by the INS on April 28. Notice of this denial was sent to Mr. Dobrota that
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="730"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=02-2513.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Were on brief for petitioner.<SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="730"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/512E3C02494CE90588256C5C007CB6B9/$file/0070595.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is amended by striking 4 PAZCOGUIN v. No change is made in the majority opinion. Judges Thompson and O'Scannlain have voted to deny the Petition for Rehearing. The Petition for Rehearing and the Petition for Rehearing En Banc are DENIED. (2) was an alien without a valid immigrant visa. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1105a(a). RADCLIFFE 5 2000).1 Our jurisdiction is not foreclosed by IIRIRA § 309(c) (4)(G) which precludes judicial review in cases where an alien is inadmissible or deportable by reason of having committed a controlled substance offense. We have repeatedly held that we retain jurisdiction to determine whether an alien in fact committed acts that would trigger IIRIRA § 309(c) (4)(G). Because the central issue here is whether Pazcoguin in fact admitted to committing the essential elements of a controlled substance violation. We have jurisdiction. Was issued a United States immigrant visa by the American Embassy in Manilla. Until he was approximately 21 years old. Pazcoguin subsequently arrived at the Honolulu International Airport and applied for admission into the United This case is governed by the transitional rules of IIRIRA.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="730"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//jan98/95-8238.man.html">SAIYID V. INS (1/12/1998, NO. 95-8238)<BR></A><BR>
Circuit Judge:</P> <P> This case is before us on a petition to review a final order of deportation. The petitioners are foreign nationals who have admitted deportability but who seek relief under 8 U.S.C. § 1253(h) (1994) (withholding of deportation). Their motion is denied.</P> <P><CENTER>I.</CENTER> </P> <P> Iftikhar Saiyid and his wife. Are citizens of Bangladesh. They decided to claim for the first time that they were refugees from Bangladesh. Saiyid was the subject of an outstanding arrest warrant for embezzlement in Oman and therefore statutorily ineligible for asylum. <EM>See</EM> 8 C.F.R. § 208.8(f)(1)(v) (1990) (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="730"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Jan1995/94a0950p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This case is about the negligent failure of an attorney representing a deportable alien a woman who has lived in the United States for twenty five years and has a husband and two children who are American citizens to file with the immigration judge in timely fashion an application for discretionary relief that. Would have saved his client from deportation. Green had twice been convicted of possession of a controlled substance: both convictions were in a Pennsylvania state court. The first was in 1990.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="730"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/5E1AF153144E0AD988257187007B96C2/$file/0371066.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Petition for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) decision that denied them asylum on the ground that they were firmly resettled in Canada after fleeing persecution in Fiji and before arriving in the United States. The Attorney General is precluded from granting asylum to an alien who was
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="728"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Nov2002/022524.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This civil action was brought in the District Court for the District of New Jersey by a consortium of media groups seeking access to
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="728"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Apr2002/011331.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The BIA held that the Immigration Judge did not have jurisdiction over these claims at the time he considered Johnson's application for relief under the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel. The question before us is whether on remand the Immigration Judge's jurisdiction was limited to the CAT issue. In deciding that it was limited. The Petition for Review will be granted and we will vacate the Board's order and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. 1. He was placed in exclusion proceedings and taken into custody by the Immigration and Naturalization Service (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="728"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/95opinions/95-5143a.html">AIR TRANS ASSN AMER V. RENO JANET<BR></A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="726"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/6FD2E2ECDE682CB088256DA50077D1FB/$file/0117191.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: Domingo Arango Marquez is a Mariel Cuban refugee subject to indefinite detention by the Immigration and Naturalization Service (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="726"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/60ADBF90384E7F0288256F33007638FE/$file/0273363.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The issue before us is whether the Baltazars were denied the right to counsel when the immigration judge banned an entire law firm from representing them at their deportation hearing. We conclude that the Baltazars did not knowingly and voluntarily waive their statutory right to counsel of choice and that they were prejudiced by the denial of that right. I. BACKGROUND The background and sequence of the proceedings is important to our decision. Entered the United States without inspection and have lived here since 1989. Baltazar's case was assigned to Judge Latimore. Baltazar's case was consolidated with her husband's and transferred to Judge Martin. The motion to consolidate the cases was submitted to Judge Martin by Monica Hagan. Judge Martin explained that the Baltazars' options were to
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="726"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-1036.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Thibeault</SPAN> were on brief for petitioner.</SPAN> <P><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="726"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/03/03-1608.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We conclude that we have jurisdiction to review the order of the BIA that rescinded its remand order. We have determined that this Court has no jurisdiction and grant the Department of Homeland Security's motion on that ground. These applications were denied by an immigration judge. The denials were upheld by the BIA and this Court. Boykov was apprehended by the Immigration and Naturalization Service (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="724"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAyLTQ2MTEtYWdfb3BuLnBkZg==/02-4611-ag_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The petition for review of Zhen Hua Dong is DENIED. Xian Zou's and Shi Liang Lin's petitions are DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction. . . . we held that a husband whose wife was forcibly sterilized could establish past persecution under this amendment to section 101(a)(42) of the [INA].
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="724"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAyLTQ2MTEtYWdfb3BuLnBkZg==/02-4611-ag_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The petition for review of Zhen Hua Dong is DENIED. Xian Zou's and Shi Liang Lin's petitions are DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction. . . . we held that a husband whose wife was forcibly sterilized could establish past persecution under this amendment to section 101(a)(42) of the [INA].
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="722"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=99-1064A.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Sanchez</U> were on brief for petitioner.</FONT> <P><FONT FACE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="722"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2003/04/02-2049.htm">02-2049 -- U.S. V. AGUIRRE-TELLO -- 04/07/2003<BR></A><BR>
We have jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="722"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/03/03-2178.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The Service's functions relating to adjudication of immigrant visa petitions were transferred to the jurisdiction of the Director of the Bureau of Citizenship and Immi (continued...) 2 No. 03 2178 a decision revoking a previously approved visa petition. On the basis that El Khader's former marriage was a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="722"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Dec2001/001823.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This evidence suggested that Appellee was a member of a terrorist organization. Was involved in the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center and had made threats against Attorney General Janet Reno. Were not 3 substantially justified. The EAJA provides that
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="722"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA0LTA5MTctYWdfb3BuLnBkZg==/04-0917-ag_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The Board further found that petitioner's testimony was not credible because he had submitted a fraudulent document in support of his application. Sitting by designation. 1 * 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 We conclude that the government violated petitioner's right to confidentiality by providing to the Chinese government a document from which it could reasonably infer that petitioner was in the United States seeking asylum. The Board's finding that Lin was not credible is without substantial evidentiary support because its sole basis for the finding is an unreliable report from the United States Consulate in Guangzhou. The petition is GRANTED. The Board's decision is VACATED. The case is REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. The IJ found that Lin's story of imprisonment and political persecution was credible and that he qualified for asylum and withholding of removal. Stating that the certificate of release from prison (the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="720"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/April2003/013294p2.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
She claims to have been persecuted because of her membership in two political organizations in Cameroon that represent the interests of the English speaking minority population. The BIA's dismissal was based on a finding that Ms. Obianuju had submitted fraudulent documents and therefore was not credible. Obianuju was persecuted because of her political opinions and faces a clear probability of persecution if returned to Cameroon. We will now also address whether the BIA should have permitted Ms. We will grant the petition for review. She is a member of the Englishspeaking minority population. She claims to have been persecuted because of her political opinion. Following is a summary of the account presented by Ms. Obianuju's parents and other family members were very active members of SDF. Obianuju tells of three times that she was jailed and physically abused because of her political activism. Obianuju claims that she was then dragged through the gravel on her knees and taken by force to Bamenda Central Prison where she was beaten on the soles of her feet and on her knees with police sticks.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="720"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=92-1678.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is amended as follows: Page 3. Is amended as follows: Page 21. Were on brief for respondent. Petitioner's principal argument is that he is eligible for asylum as a result of the detention and torture visited upon him as a means of persecuting his brother. We hold that petitioner is statutorily eligible for asylum and that he is entitled to a meaningful opportunity to respond to extra record facts noticed by the Board. BACKGROUND1 BACKGROUND Petitioner is an Ethiopian alien of Amhara descent. He was born in 1960 in Addis Ababa. Since neither the underlying facts nor petitioner's credibility are in dispute. We lay out the facts as described by petitioner's testimony and other information in the record submitted by him. 2 2 never suffered physical harm or a deprivation of liberty until he was older.2 Petitioner was allowed to finish his education. He received an engineering degree from the University of Addis Ababa and was ordered to work at the Ethiopian Construction Authority. The military authorities arrested petitioner's father and younger brother as they were participating in a Seventh Day Adventist service.3 It is undisputed that the father and brother were persecuted.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="720"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/May1998/98a1851p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Found Balasubramanrim's testimony before the immigration judge was not credible because it was inconsistent with information he gave to Immigration and Naturalization Service officials at the airport upon entry into the United States. Because this credibility finding was not supported by substantial evidence. We will grant the petition. Was born on February 19. This documentary evidence supports his claim that some Tamils in Sri Lanka are subject to mistreatment at the hands of both government and anti government forces. 2 Since 1987. The Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam have been in armed conflict with the government and Indian peacekeeping forces since 1987.2 Although the Liberation Tigers have succeeded in controlling much of the Northern Province and parts of the Eastern Province. Both government forces and Liberation Tiger rebels have committed human rights violations. Young male Tamils like Balasubramanrim are most often the target of this abuse. Most Sri Lankan asylum claimants in the United States are Tamil males between the ages of 20 and 36.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="720"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/mar2003/02-12265.opn.html">NYAGA V. ASHCROFT (3/5/2003, NO. 02-12265)<BR></A><BR>
Nyaga's case was moot because as of midnight on September 30. He was no longer eligible to receive a diversity immigrant visa. A limited number of immigrant visas are made available to individuals from countries that historically have had low rates of immigration to the United States. 8 U.S.C. § 1153(c) (2002). To remain in the United States as a lawful permanent resident if the recipient is already lawfully within the United States and if the Attorney General adjusts the recipient's status) under the Immigration and Nationality Act. An alien must have a high school education or have. If an alien is entitled to receive a visa under the diversity visa program. The alien's spouse and minor children are entitled to the same status. 8 U.S.C. § 1153(d).</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="720"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/March2004/024134p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Was convicted of a felony and subjected to immigration removal proceedings. The District Court determined that Bakhtriger was essentially seeking review of a discretionary determination of the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS). That there is no jurisdiction under the habeas statute. This question of the scope of habeas jurisdiction is one of first impression in this Circuit. We agree with the District Court's reading of the law and we will affirm. He was granted the protection of the United States as a refugee and became a lawful permanent resident in April 1994. Bakhtriger was convicted of possession of both cocaine base and heroin in the Court of Common Pleas in Montgomery County. Bakhtriger was arrested for violating his probation. Is [removable]. 1 Under recent amendments to the Immigration and Nationality Act. Saying that Bakhtriger was
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="720"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/03/01/021264P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
After concluding that we have jurisdiction to review the Board's order. I. Ikenokwalu is a 44 year old native and citizen of Nigeria who entered the United States on August 21. The instant proceedings commenced in 1995 when the INS issued an Order to Show Cause charging that Ikenokwalu was subject to deportation for. An Immigration Judge found Ikenokwalu deportable and denied her applications for suspension of deportation under 8 U.S.C. § 1254(a)(3) and voluntary departure under 8 U.S.C. § 1254(e).2 The Immigration Judge found that Ikenokwalu failed to establish that she was of good moral character and that her deportation would cause extreme hardship to herself or her family. Both of which were statutory prerequisites to the Attorney General's discretionary suspension authority. Will refer. To the version in effect at the time Ikenokwalu's deportation proceedings were initiated. Although the immigration laws were substantially overhauled by the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="720"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/03a0277p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The Board's order of dismissal is affirmed. I. BACKGROUND Petitioner Scorteanu is a 31 year old native and citizen of Romania. Petitioner was served with an Order to Show Cause (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="720"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//mar2003/02-12265.opn.html">NYAGA V. ASHCROFT (3/5/2003, NO. 02-12265)<BR></A><BR>
Nyaga's case was moot because as of midnight on September 30. He was no longer eligible to receive a diversity immigrant visa. A limited number of immigrant visas are made available to individuals from countries that historically have had low rates of immigration to the United States. 8 U.S.C. § 1153(c) (2002). To remain in the United States as a lawful permanent resident if the recipient is already lawfully within the United States and if the Attorney General adjusts the recipient's status) under the Immigration and Nationality Act. An alien must have a high school education or have. If an alien is entitled to receive a visa under the diversity visa program. The alien's spouse and minor children are entitled to the same status. 8 U.S.C. § 1153(d).</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="720"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=04-1962_023.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Where she was born and raised. We find that the immigration judge's credibility determinations were not supported 2 No. 04 1962 by cogent reasons bearing a legitimate nexus to the finding. I. Giday's tale of mixed ancestry is a familiar one. Her partial Ethiopian ancestry (her mother is Ethiopian and her father Eritrean) subjected her to persecution by the Eritrean Government. She testified that she was born in 1979 in Asmara. When Giday was six. She explained to the national service officers that she was attending school and soon to be married. She testified that she was able to avoid serving by moving from her mother's house to her fiance's house whenever she heard word that government officials were on their way. Giday's brothers were conscripted into the national service and Giday stated that she has not heard from either her mother or brothers since that time. Giday initially testified that she was detained because her mother was Ethiopian and also because she had failed to serve in the national service a second time.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="717"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/A8747A5B972AEE1F882572D8000203FF/$file/0456353.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: For nearly ninety years it has been clearly established that aliens who seek exemption from compulsory military service the draft based on alienage will be forever barred from becoming United States citizens. We are asked to decide whether this bar to citizenship applies to an alien who voluntarily enlisted in the United States Navy. Was honorably discharged. While ground combat operations during Operation Desert Storm were underway in Kuwait and Iraq. Gallarde claims to have endured pain on a daily basis and to have begun experiencing numbness in his left leg. He was advised that such a request would be denied. Was advised that he could seek a discharge on the ground that he was an alien. Gallarde's commanding officer exercised the discretion given him by applicable regulations and denied Gallarde's request because the Navy was experiencing a shortage of sailors in Gallarde's occupational specialty. Indicating that he was requesting
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="717"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/22525D3C4878854E88256F39007A3851/$file/0272422.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: The petitioner is an alien who was convicted in Oregon of first time simple drug possession. Because at the time his deportation order was upheld Chavez Perez had suffered a judgment of conviction for a drug offense. We conclude that the INS has a rational basis for treating him differently from those aliens whose convictions have previously been expunged. Or whose charges were deferred and later dismissed. I Daniel Chavez Perez is a native and citizen of Mexico who entered the United States in 1991 as a lawful permanent resident. He was convicted of possession of methamphetamine and sentenced to 20 days in On March 1. ChavezPerez argued that his conviction was the functional equivalent of those federal convictions that qualify for expungement under the Federal First Offender Act (FFOA). He asserted that the Equal Protection Clause forbids his removal based on a comparable state conviction that was subject to future expungement at the time of the INS's order. A majority of the Board members concluded that
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="717"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/jan99/98-4426.opn.html">RODRIGUEZ V. RENO (1/4/1999, NO. 98-4426)<BR></A><BR>
Facts and Procedural History</STRONG></P> <P> Mejia is a native of Honduras who lawfully entered the United States as a nonimmigrant visitor on November 17. Mejia was charged in Florida state court with possession of cocaine. Mejia was advised that his criminal record would be sealed upon completion of his probationary sentence.</P> <P> Prior to his first deportation hearing. The BIA found that Mejia was within a class of aliens who could be deported based on a controlled substance conviction and therefore concluded that the immigration judge properly found that Mejia was ineligible for a suspension of deportation.</P> <P> In a letter dated April 12. The INS informed Mejia that he was scheduled to be deported on May 12. Although Mejia could have sought judicial review of the BIA's January 1994 decision. Me<U></U>jia contended that he did not receive effective assistance of counsel in his state criminal proceedings because he was not informed of the immigration consequences of his no contest plea. </P> <P> On August 1.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="717"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/323A4A97B8DD907388256D7100809EBA/$file/0235788.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: Appellant Oscar Rojas Garcia is subject to a final order of deportation. Rather challenges the determination that he is inadmissible. We have jurisdiction. I Rojas Garcia is a native and citizen of Mexico. The Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) issued an Order to 1 Section 212(a)(2)(C) makes inadmissible in part: Any alien who the consular officer or the Attorney General knows or has reason to believe . . . is or has been an illicit trafficker in any controlled substance or in any listed chemical . . . or is or has been a knowing aider. Alleging Rojas Garcia was deportable because he entered the United States without inspection and was convicted in Washington. A hearing was set for May 1. To adjudicate whether Rojas Garcia was entitled to relief. The INS learned that Rojas Garcia was arrested on drug related charges in Hermiston. Which declares inadmissible in part: Any alien who the consular officer or the Attorney General knows or has reason to believe . . . is or has been an illicit trafficker in any controlled substance or in any listed chemical . . . or is or has been a knowing aider.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="717"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAzLTI0NTBfb3BuLnBkZg==/03-2450_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Duamutef was convicted after a jury trial of murder in the second degree. He was sentenced to a term of 15 years to life imprisonment. While Duamutef was serving his sentence. The INS ceased to exist as an independent agency within the Department of Justice and its functions were transferred to the Department of Homeland Security. To be consistent with the District Court order and because the rulings at issue in this case were made 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 serving him with an order to show cause. The INS alleged that Duamutef was deportable pursuant to sections 241(a)(1)(B) and 241(a)(2)(A)(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="717"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//jan99/98-4426.opn.html">RODRIGUEZ V. RENO (1/4/1999, NO. 98-4426)<BR></A><BR>
Facts and Procedural History</STRONG></P> <P> Mejia is a native of Honduras who lawfully entered the United States as a nonimmigrant visitor on November 17. Mejia was charged in Florida state court with possession of cocaine. Mejia was advised that his criminal record would be sealed upon completion of his probationary sentence.</P> <P> Prior to his first deportation hearing. The BIA found that Mejia was within a class of aliens who could be deported based on a controlled substance conviction and therefore concluded that the immigration judge properly found that Mejia was ineligible for a suspension of deportation.</P> <P> In a letter dated April 12. The INS informed Mejia that he was scheduled to be deported on May 12. Although Mejia could have sought judicial review of the BIA's January 1994 decision. Me<U></U>jia contended that he did not receive effective assistance of counsel in his state criminal proceedings because he was not informed of the immigration consequences of his no contest plea. </P> <P> On August 1.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="717"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200015657.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Lyn Quee does not challenge the IJ's finding that she was deportable but instead argues that she is entitled to apply for discretionary relief under the pre 1996 INA § 212(c) and (h). That Lyn Quee is entitled to apply for discretionary relief under the pre 1996 INA § 212(c) and (h). Lyn Quee's Background & INS Removal Proceedings Lyn Quee is a native and citizen of Jamaica who has been a lawful permanent resident alien of the United States since November 1. Lyn Quee was convicted of possession of counterfeit United States obligations and receipt of counterfeit United States obligations in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 472 and 473. She was sentenced to sixteen months' imprisonment. 2 On January 25.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="717"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/02/02-3861.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
No. 02 3861 Oforji is a Nigerian citizen who sought entry into the United States at Chicago on April 4. An initial hearing before an IJ was held on August 28. Wherein Oforji admitted that she was an alien not in possession of a valid immigration document at the time of her entry. Oforji testified that she is a member of the Ogoni Tribe of Nigeria and that the Tribe lived without roads. She claims to have fled Nigeria to avoid arrest because she was too
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="715"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAzLTQwNzBfb3BuLnBkZg==/03-4070_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
To New York City and concluding that he had willfully misrepresented a material fact in his Petition to Remove the Conditions of Residence and that Monter was therefore removable. We have substituted Attorney General Alberto Gonzales for former Attorney General John Ashcroft as the respondent in this case. Several years after he was married and after he had been granted conditional permanent residency status. 1 which was approved without an interview. The Immigration and Naturalization Service was reconstituted as the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement [
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="713"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/011776.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Although we agree that his asylum hearing was conducted in a haphazard manner. He was interrogated and assaulted on multiple occasions by the Roma RUSU v. His application was denied. He was refused entry and forcibly returned to the United States. Rusu was placed in a detention facility in Farmville. He was charged by the Immigration and Naturalization Service (the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="711"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA0LTAzNzQtYWdfb3BuLnBkZg==/04-0374-ag_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The immigration judge based his credibility ruling on perceived inconsistencies that were not self evident and were not raised during petitioner's hearing. Was not given an opportunity to address the immigration judge's apparent misgivings. Circuit Judge: Asylum petitions of aliens seeking refuge from alleged persecution are among the hardest cases faced by our courts. They are not games. These suits are not to be disposed of improvidently. On appeal to which all litigants are entitled.1 We should not forget. What is at stake. Concluding that an immigrant's story is fabricated when. It is real. Whether the danger is of religious discrimination. We must always remember the toll that is paid if and when we err.2 Yet. There is no simple way to sift through and separate dishonest asylum petitions from bona fide ones. It is not See Zhen Li Iao v. 535 (7th Cir. 2005) (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="711"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/031144.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We conclude that the BIA's denial of asylum is neither manifestly contrary to law nor an abuse of discretion. The petition for review is denied. I. Ngarurih is a native and citizen of Kenya who entered the United States in May 1995 on a nonimmigrant student visa. Tea farmers were required to maintain their plantations in accordance with instructions issued by the Kenya Tea Development Authority (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="711"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/C1D8AF522B606F4488256FBD005F1A4D/$file/0272651.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Opinion by Judge Pregerson *Alberto Gonzales is substituted for his predecessor. The BIA affirmed without opinion a decision of the Immigration Judge (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="711"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/001328.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
OPINION PER CURIAM: Mohammad Musa Yousefi (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="711"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=06-2254_023.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This is the second time that we are called to address Olger Peralta Cabrera's case. The material facts are not disputed. A central player in this story and asked him to come to O'Hare and help him When the Immigration and Naturalization Act (INA) was amended in 1997 by the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA). One of the many changes made was the substitution of the term
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="711"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/FD6331A69E68ABF988256E21005E5469/$file/0270487.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a). Petitioners1 are citizens of Iran who applied for asylum in Because the petitions for Jahed's wife and children are dependent on his petition. The remainder of this opinion will discuss the proceedings by 1 560 JAHED v. The purpose of this group was to establish an impartial system of justice with the removal of torture and unwarranted executions. This is a banned opposition organization. Q. 35 I have been a member of a banned opposition organization. Our purpose was removal of the current regime and an end to torture. I didn't have the money. In any event he would have turned me in whether or not I paid. He was similarly referencing only Petitioner Jahed. Was imprisoned with his entire family in Tehran in 1987 and has not been heard of since. As we will discuss later. The State Department's relevant country report of August 1997 describes the Mojahedin and its hostile relationship to Iran's current government as follows: The Mojahedin organization is one of the most active militant Iranian opposition groupings with a world wide network of members and supporters.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="709"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/B34DD8C05E297FA488256DB200773184/$file/0171752.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
He challenges the BIA's finding that he was ineligible for suspension of deportation because he failed to voluntarily depart as provided by an earlier order. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1105a. The Immigration and Naturalization Service (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="709"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/E50237D3832C332B88256F62005DA2A8/$file/0272515.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is a derivative applicant whose petition depends MANSOUR v. Mansour and Ewada (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="707"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/042415p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Enacted as part of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="707"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/2BFC9ADDE2F1137988256BC800791911/$file/0116029.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Were on the briefs. Hugo Armendariz Montoya (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="707"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/EF48386956684E8388256F540056492F/$file/0273538.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
ASHCROFT 16177 Immigration Judge (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="707"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/1CDFF89B8AA679BA88256E3E007A8AF5/$file/0270439.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
He also challenges the BIA's determination that he is ineligible to adjust his status to that of permanent resident as a derivative beneficiary of his parents' visa. The latter denial was based on a determination that Padash was not statutorily eligible for permanent residence because. Having turned twenty one before his visa was adjudicated. Padash was seventeen. His claim is based on two incidents of violence that occurred at his father's restaurant. When Padash told the customers that the item was unavailable. There was a police station across the street. Shortly after the fight Padash was born in India and resided with his parents in Poona. He obtained an Iranian passport because his grandparents were born there. 2 PADASH v. Although Padash was not present on that occasion. Padash testified that because the current regime in India is
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="704"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0937n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Volaj was born in Broje. Volaj is an Albanian citizen. The functions of the Immigration and Naturalization Service have been transferred to the Department of Homeland Security. 68 F.R. § 9824 (Feb. 28. He stated that he was seeking asylum based on his membership in a particular social group (J.A. at 90). He alleged that he was afraid of being beaten or murdered by the Albanian government if he returned and attempted to retrieve his land (J.A.at 91). He was hospitalized from the beating. Venue was changed from Orlando. Volaj also made attempts to have his land returned. He was threatened by civilians working as secret police. The first exhibits were affidavits and certificates verifying the Volajs' membership in the Society of ExPolitically Persecuted Persons. The third exhibit was an affidavit attesting that someone has been occupying his land for ten years and has a large amount of weapons stored on the property. The immigration judge found that the Volajs' claims amounted to a well founded fear of a neighbor who was threatening Mr.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="704"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/021327.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The courts of appeal continue to have jurisdiction to review an amnesty denial. Is otherwise admissible as an immigrant. Whose authorized stay expired before such date or whose unlawful status was known to the Government as of January 1. That they were therefore unlawfully present in the United States on January 1. The INS accordingly requested that the Orqueras submit evidence that they were not legally present as consular employees or family with A 2 visas. Had therefore failed to show that they were in
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="704"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=05-3752_013.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Afi Marie Apouviepseakoda is a native and citizen of Togo who came to the United States in 2002 without a valid visa. She was paroled into the country while awaiting a final determination on her applications for asylum. All of these were denied by an immigration judge (IJ) who ordered her removal. Challenging both the IJ's finding that she was not credible and the BIA's conclusion that the IJ's handling of her hearing did not violate due process. 2 No. 05 3752 Apouviepseakoda says that her troubles began as a result of her husband's business relations with the mayor of Lomé. The mayor is a member of the Union des Forces du Changement. Although her husband is not a member. It is unclear whether she was referring to something beyond his business obligations. The mayor was jailed. A warning was received from a relative that government forces were looking for the husband. When she told them that she did not know where he was she says they beat her with their fists and batons for more than 30 minutes. She was assisted into the country by a friend.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="704"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAzLTQwNjEyX29wbi5wZGY=/03-40612_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We hold that Gill's crime of conviction cannot constitute a crime involving moral turpitude because it lacks the requisite mental state and that we have jurisdiction to reach this issue. Is not a CIMT because it requires only a reckless state of mind. Whereas some positive intent is required for a CIMT. Because it is legally impossible. The legal incoherence of Gill's crime of conviction was not argued in the administrative proceedings below. This argument is subsidiary to the general argument Gill did make before the BIA: that his crime of conviction did not reflect a sufficiently culpable mental state to be designated a CIMT. We hold that our basis for reversing the BIA's decision is not precluded by the exhaustion requirement for immigration appeals. Whose father is a United States citizen. Was admitted to the United States as a visitor in 1989. Which proscribes
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="704"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/3F1761D1C279963388257069004D941B/$file/0273543.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Concurrence by Judge Gould *Alberto Gonzales is substituted for his predecessor. Garcia Ramirez asserts that the BIA and IJ impermissibly applied the continuous presence requirement of 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(d)(2) (the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="704"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/03/00-4008.htm">00-4008 -- AGUILERA V. KIRKPATRICK -- 03/07/2001<BR></A><BR>
Although we hold that we do have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="702"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/996061.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
I. Tasios is a Greek citizen who has been a lawful permanent resident of the United States since 1967 when. An uncle are U.S. citizens. While his parents are lawful permanent residents. In 1995 Tasios was indicted on a single count of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine. That led the district court to find that his total offense level was 15. He was sentenced to 18 months in prison. Because his actual prison sentence was under five years. Is relevant to this case in two respects. Who have been convicted of drug trafficking offenses. Arguing that the INS's interpretation of § 440(d) was incorrect. The INS argues that AEDPA implicitly repealed § 2241 habeas jurisdiction for aliens who are deportable because they committed certain crimes. Each of these arguments is foreclosed by our recent holding in Bowrin that district courts have jurisdiction under § 2241 to review the very claim presented here. His conviction for that offense would not have precluded him from applying for § 212(c) relief if the INS tried to deport him.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="702"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=97-1836.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Newhoff with whom Harvard Immigration and Refugee Clinic of Greater Boston Legal Services was on brief for appellant. Were on brief for appellee. The Board found that petitioner did not have a well founded fear of persecution. She was fourteen years old when Jean Bertrand Aristide was elected president of Haiti. The university's opening was delayed. She testified that she and other students were fearful because violent crime was rampant and because they had heard that the Ton Ton Macoutes. Were entering schools and kidnapping students. Petitioner's decision to flee Haiti was prompted by an incident that led her to believe that she was being persecuted because of her pro Aristide views. As she and six friends were standing outside her home discussing President Aristide and expressing their desire to see him restored to power. There are a lot of people who don't like Aristide and they can kill you. Was one of the regular customers at her grandmother's bread and coffee store. Which was located in the front of their home.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="702"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/03/03-1362.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Esther Olowo is a native and citizen of Nigeria who has lawful permanent resident status in the United States. If she is returned to Nigeria. Her two daughters will be subjected to female genital mutilation. Olowo was living with her family in Chicago when a family friend. Babatunde Ali (who also was living in Chicago at the time). The two were not on the best of terms. Olowo said that she was the child's mother. Olowo and Grace were called back because INS inspectors had detained Ms. The inspectors suspected that all four were traveling together. Olowo said that she was Grace's
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="702"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/11/98-1312.htm">98-1312 -- DINH V. RENO -- 11/18/1999<BR></A><BR>
Background Facts and Procedures</strong></center> <p> Plaintiff Tuong Huan Van Dinh<a href=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="702"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/BBAF3C4AD260891188256D60006E97BD/$file/0271143.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We are presented with constitutional and regulatory challenges to the Board of Immigration Appeals' (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="702"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0025n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We have here a petition for review of an order in which the Board of Immigration Appeals summarily affirmed an immigration judge's denial of the petitioner's application for asylum. We are not persuaded that the challenged evidentiary rulings resulted in the denial of a fair hearing. The immigration judge admitted documentary evidence relating to the topics about which the petitioner was precluded from testifying. No. 02 4284 Page 2 documents has not been shown to have prejudiced the petitioner. Nor are we persuaded that the Board's review of the immigration judge's decision was inadequate. The petition for review will be denied. Is a native and citizen of Kazakhstan. This was his third visit to the United States. The merits hearing was held in September of 2001. Abramovich was the only witness. Abramovich was responsible for timely submission of the documents and that it was too late for them to be accepted. The judge concluded that Abramovich did not have a well founded fear of persecution. This timely petition for review followed.1 II Although there is no constitutional right to asylum.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="700"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/02/02-4248.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Yetunde Balogun attempted to enter the United States without a valid entry document or labor certification and was placed in custody of the Immigration and Naturalization Service (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="700"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0524n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The petitioners are native Iraqis who arrived illegally in the United States on May 17. Upon their arrival both Toma and Karim were interviewed by officers of No. 05 3748 Toma v. Both interviews were brief. Toma was first asked background questions regarding his citizenship and the circumstances of his entry into the United States. Toma was then asked only two questions relating to allegations of persecution: Q: Do you have any fear or concern about being returned to your home country or being removed from the United States? Because I was accused by the Iraqi government of selling videotapes against the government. Q: Would you be harmed if you are returned to your home country or country of last residence? The same questions were posed to Karim. Who answered in a manner similar to her husband: Q: Do you have any fear or concern about being returned to your home country or being removed from the United States? Because if they hurt my husband they will hurt me. Q: Would you be harmed if you are returned to your home country or country of last residence?
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="700"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA1LTQ3NzEtYWdfb3BuLnBkZg==/05-4771-ag_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Petitioner challenges the IJ's denial of his motion on the ground that he was improperly charged with removal as an inadmissible
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="700"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/94opinions/94-5076.html">AEROLINEAS V. U.S.<BR></A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="698"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0431p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Appeals the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="698"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/F5382DE56B88821A88256F500002A7D8/$file/0370044.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Factual Background Shire was born in the city of Merka in Somalia in 1973. He is a member of the Tunni clan. A
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="698"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/B27E3A2C9C1EBD7388256DE60004738D/$file/0271143.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is amended as follows: 1. ASHCROFT 16579
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="696"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/032917p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Fiadjoe was seven years of age. Fiadjoe was held as a slave of her father. Fiadjoe sought asylum and other relief on the ground that if she were returned to Ghana she. A consequence that Ghanian government authorities were unable or unwilling to prevent. Fiadjoe's testimony was not credible. Fiadjoe failed to establish that the government of Ghana was either unwilling or unable to control her father's sexual abuse. We conclude that these findings are not supported by reasonable. We will grant the petition and remand the case for a new hearing and development of the record before a different IJ. She is a member of the Ewe tribe and a native and citizen of Ghana. She was detained as an arriving alien and interviewed. Fiadjoe conceded that she was removable under §212(a)(7)(A)(i)(I) of the INA for being an intending immigrant not in possession of a valid visa or other entry document. Held an evidentiary hearing on April The enforcement functions of the INS have since been transferred to the Department of Homeland Security.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="696"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/3B54173F3705721688256C1B0059DC21/$file/0071558.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Are natives and citizens of Mexico. Was granted until April 8. No brief was ever filed. INS 12193 We have jurisdiction under former § 106 of the INA. The court reviews summary dismissals to determine whether they are appropriate. (D) The party concerned indicates on Form EOIR 26 or Form EOIR 29 that he or she will file a brief or statement in support of the appeal and. The notice requirement has been outlined as follows: It is . . . insufficient to merely assert that the immigration judge improperly found that deportability had been established or denied . . . . Where eligibility for discretionary relief is at issue. Where a question of law is presented. Where the dispute is on the facts. The purpose of this strict notice requirement is to ensure that
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="696"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/july99/98-4230.ma4.html">RICHARDSON V. RENO (7/14/1999, NO. 98-4230)<BR></A><BR>
Circuit Judge:</P> <P> This case is before us on remand from the Supreme Court.<A HREF=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="696"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/may99/97-5537.opn.html">MAYERS V. UNITED STATES DEP'T OF IMMIGRATION (5/20/1999, NO. 97-5537)<BR></A><BR>
Sitting by designation.</P> <P>**This decision is rendered by a quorum. We provide below a brief overview of the statutory schemes that are relevant to this action.</P> <UL> <LI>Reform of Immigration Laws</STRONG></LI> <UL> <LI><U>AEDPA</U></LI> </UL> </UL> <P><STRONG> On April 24. Eliminated the earlier INA § 106(a)(10) and under AEDPA § 440(a) substituted the following language:</P> <P> [A]ny final order of deportation against an alien who is deportable by reason of having committed a criminal offense [as set forth in the INA] shall not be subject to review by any court.</P> <P>AEDPA § 440(a). Were entitled to apply for a waiver of deportation under INA § 212(c). The granting of a waiver was a discretionary act of the Attorney General. The judicial review process for deportation orders once again was restructured when Congress enacted the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="696"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/977250.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
He seeks to have his asylum application heard by an immigration judge instead of an INS asylum officer who merely conducted an informal interview. We hold that we have jurisdiction. I Selgeka is an ethnic Albanian who is a native of the province of Kosovo. The Albanians are not sure if they are killed by the Bosnians in the front or the Ser[b]ians behind them. . . . The Serbs have commi[t]ted horrible acts which I do not believe in. . . . To be forced to serve in the army is against my political beliefs. Selgeka also stated that ethnic Albanians are punished more severely than other draft evaders. His brother was drafted and killed under unknown circumstances. Was shot and left to die. The atrocities by the Serbian government in Kosovo have been well documented: There were approximately 2. Many of these individuals were beaten by the police. . . . Excessive force and torture during detention were often reported. Selgeka's application for asylum was referred to an asylum officer. The asylum officer made an
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="696"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/15B6085E73D13CF788256F09005506C9/$file/0171596.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
After he was removed from the country. The prior removal order is invalid and cannot serve as the basis for the reinstatement order. We reject this argument because Arreola's removal order was
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="696"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/apr2001/00-11807.man.html">FARQUHARSON V. ATTORNEY GEN. (4/6/2001, NO. 00-11807)<BR></A><BR>
Farquharson was ineligible for an equitable waiver of deportation. We affirm the BIA's decision that Farquharson is deportable. Was admitted to the United States as a lawful permanent resident on August 23. He was flying a plane loaded with marijuana from Jamaica to Florida when he encountered engine trouble and was forced to crash land about fifty miles from his intended landing site in Florida. Farquharson and his copilot were apprehended by a police search party about a half hour after the crash. Farquharson was convicted of unlawful possession of marijuana in an amount of more than twenty grams. He was sentenced to five years of probation.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="696"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//may99/97-5537.opn.html">MAYERS V. UNITED STATES DEP'T OF IMMIGRATION (5/20/1999, NO. 97-5537)<BR></A><BR>
Sitting by designation.</P> <P>**This decision is rendered by a quorum. We provide below a brief overview of the statutory schemes that are relevant to this action.</P> <UL> <LI>Reform of Immigration Laws</STRONG></LI> <UL> <LI><U>AEDPA</U></LI> </UL> </UL> <P><STRONG> On April 24. Eliminated the earlier INA § 106(a)(10) and under AEDPA § 440(a) substituted the following language:</P> <P> [A]ny final order of deportation against an alien who is deportable by reason of having committed a criminal offense [as set forth in the INA] shall not be subject to review by any court.</P> <P>AEDPA § 440(a). Were entitled to apply for a waiver of deportation under INA § 212(c). The granting of a waiver was a discretionary act of the Attorney General. The judicial review process for deportation orders once again was restructured when Congress enacted the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="696"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/C34D049F6277EB3488256B7B0000A085/$file/0170006.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: Petitioners Nicolas Rodriguez Lariz and Maria de Jesus Guevara Martinez were granted voluntary departure to Mexico after their legal representatives failed timely to file applications for suspension of deportation under § 244 of the Immigration and Naturalization Act (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="696"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//july99/98-4230.ma4.html">RICHARDSON V. RENO (7/14/1999, NO. 98-4230)<BR></A><BR>
Circuit Judge:</P> <P> This case is before us on remand from the Supreme Court.<A HREF=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="696"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//apr2001/00-11807.man.html">FARQUHARSON V. ATTORNEY GEN. (4/6/2001, NO. 00-11807)<BR></A><BR>
Farquharson was ineligible for an equitable waiver of deportation. We affirm the BIA's decision that Farquharson is deportable. Was admitted to the United States as a lawful permanent resident on August 23. He was flying a plane loaded with marijuana from Jamaica to Florida when he encountered engine trouble and was forced to crash land about fifty miles from his intended landing site in Florida. Farquharson and his copilot were apprehended by a police search party about a half hour after the crash. Farquharson was convicted of unlawful possession of marijuana in an amount of more than twenty grams. He was sentenced to five years of probation.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="696"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/024650.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: Sylvia Anita Ryan Webster was convicted in the Eastern District of Virginia in 2002 of conspiracy to defraud the United States and four counts of immigration fraud. Ryan Webster was the sole practitioner in a District of Columbia law practice called Ryan & Webster. Her work primarily involved the representation of aliens seeking permanent legal status in the United States through the process for issuance of Permanent Resident Cards (commonly called
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="696"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/07/00-9516a.htm">00-9516A -- WOLDEMESKEL V. IMMIGRATION & NATURALIZATION SERVICE -- 07/25/2001<BR></A><BR>
<a href=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="694"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/8D5923F77193B69A88256E5A00707BC6/$file/9871087.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Fletcher was drawn to replace him. I. The BIA's factual determinations are reviewed under the substantial evidence standard. We may reverse if the evidence is such that a reasonable factfinder would be compelled to conclude that a well founded fear of persecution has been established. Lal was a prominent member of the Fijian Labor Party. The Labor Party was successful in its 1987 electoral bid. Which was controlled by members of the native Fijian population. Lal was dragged from his 1 The application for asylum is based on Mr. Since the applications of both his wife and child are derivative of his claim. We will focus on Mr. He was placed in detention and held for three days by the army. Explaining that his treatment was in retaliation for his work on behalf of the Labor Party. Lal was stripped of his clothes. Urine was forced into his mouth. He was cut with knives and singed with burning cigarettes. He was deprived of food and water. Lal was in jail. Sometime after he was released from detention. Lal was forced to watch the assault at gunpoint.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="694"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/F1D4C2285FE9C71388256A7E000000C2/$file/9871087.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Fletcher was drawn to replace him. I. The BIA's factual determinations are reviewed under the substantial evidence standard. We may reverse if the evidence is such that a reasonable factfinder would be compelled to conclude that a well founded fear of persecution has been established. Lal was a prominent member of the Fijian Labor Party. The Labor Party was successful in its 1987 electoral bid. Which was controlled by members of the native Fijian population. Lal was dragged from his 1 The application for asylum is based on Mr. Since the applications of both his wife and child are derivative of his claim. We will focus on Mr. He was placed in detention and held for three days by the army. Explaining that his treatment was in retaliation for his work on behalf of the Labor Party. Lal was stripped of his clothes. Urine was forced into his mouth. He was cut with knives and singed with burning cigarettes. He was deprived of food and water. Lal was in jail. Sometime after he was released from detention. Lal was forced to watch the assault at gunpoint.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="694"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/02/02-3172.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Were citizens of Bar. As a visitor using a passport and visa The Attorney General has been substituted for the Immigration and Naturalization Service. 1 2 No. 02 3172 he later admitted were fraudulent. Which was eventually denied by the INS on February 15. Elvis Capric were placed in deportation proceedings for remaining in the United States beyond their authorized periods of stay. 8 U.S.C. § 1251(a)(1)(C)(I) (Supp. Capric was also placed in deportation proceedings for having procured entry into the United States by fraud or by wilfully misrepresenting a material fact. 8 U.S.C. § 1251(a)(1)(A). This second asylum application was not actually filed until a hearing on July 18. His wife and sons were included in that application.2 Two hearings were held on Capric's asylum application. We will refer to the singular Petitioner or Capric to describe all of the Petitioners as well as Mr. The substantive outcome of Capric's claims is determinative for all Petitioners. 8 U.S.C. §§ 1153(d). Was conducted in English at the suggestion of Capric's counsel.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="694"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/0D548DBE6270A4E688256D4A0079DB8C/$file/0171478.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The pivotal question is whether we lack jurisdiction over his petition because the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA). All statutory citations are to Title 8 of the United States Code. He and Lopez have since had two children.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="694"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/lognameprint.php">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Jerome Wayne Johnson</td> <td align=left valign=top>03 13595 / 03 00036 CR J 25 TEM</td> <td align=left valign=top><font color=red>07 12 2004</font></td> </tr> <tr bgcolor=cccccc> <td colspan=3> </td> </tr> <tr bgcolor=cccccc> <td colspan=3> </td> </tr> <tr> <td align=left valign=top>In re: Will C. Bowman</td> <td align=left valign=top>02 13050 / 01 01345 CV BU E</td> <td align=left valign=top><font color=red>08 13 2003</font></td> </tr> <tr bgcolor=cccccc> <td colspan=3> </td> </tr> <tr bgcolor=cccccc> <td colspan=3> </td> </tr> <tr> <td align=left valign=top>In re: Will C. Whose name in this complaint will be Dakota Allen v.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="694"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/E20BC6A38029FDAE88256E5A00707D1B/$file/9871087.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Fletcher was drawn to replace him. ORDER The Government's petition for rehearing is granted to the extent set forth following. Add a footnote at p. 8391 at the end of the last sentence before section
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="694"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/lognameprint2.php">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Whose name in this complaint will be Dakota Allen v. Bowman</td> <td align=left valign=top>02 13050 / 01 01345 CV BU E</td> <td align=left valign=top><font color=red>08 13 2003</font></td> </tr> <tr bgcolor=cccccc> <td colspan=3> </td> </tr> <tr bgcolor=cccccc> <td colspan=3> </td> </tr> <tr> <td align left valign=top>In re: Will C. Cohen</td> <td align=left valign=top>03 13162 / 02 23079 CV KMM</td> <td align=left valign=top><font color=red>07 08 2004</font></td> </tr> <tr bgcolor=cccccc> <td colspan=3> </td> </tr> <tr bgcolor=cccccc> <td colspan=3> </td> </tr> <tr> <td align left valign=top>In re: Will C.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="694"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/8CF724444F7850F888256AED005BBF95/$file/9871087.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Fletcher was drawn to replace him. ORDER The Government's petition for rehearing is granted to the extent set forth following. Add a footnote at p. 8391 at the end of the last sentence before section
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="694"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Aug1997/97a1664p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Was indicted by a federal grand jury and convicted in 1990 for drug violations. I. Franklin Uzo Igbonwa is a Nigerian citizen who entered the United States in 1986 as a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="691"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/722E5963CD28E15B88256E5A00707C04/$file/9970251.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: We previously have held that the INS can prove alienage with a properly authenticated INS form I 213. The issue in this case is whether an authenticated INS form WR 424 also is admissible to prove alienage. Although the WR 424 is smaller than the I 213. It contains the same information that we held to be critical in Espinoza and is prepared in essentially the same way. We therefore hold that a properly authenticated WR 424 is admissible in a deportation hearing to prove its contents. I. Procedural Background Jaime Lopez Chavez petitions for review of the order of the BIA that he is deportable to Mexico for entering the United States without inspection. We have jurisdiction under Section 106(a) of the INA. The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act was signed by the President. Lopez Chavez answered that he was born in Nochixtlan. Was a Mexican national and that he entered the United States without inspection on or about January 5. Was then called to the stand. The appeal is timely under the transitional rules because it was filed on March 10.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="691"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/031331.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Petitioner is a native and citizen of Guatemala who entered the United States in 1999. His cousin was apprehended by Mexican authorities then deported to Guatemala. While it is clear that Petitioner has an objectively reasonable fear for his life if he is to return to Guatemala. The BIA's determination that Petitioner was not persecuted
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="691"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/BD4F7741731F39C188256A940075EBF3/$file/9970251.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: We previously have held that the INS can prove alienage with a properly authenticated INS form I 213. The issue in this case is whether an authenticated INS form WR 424 also is admissible to prove alienage. Although the WR 424 is smaller than the I 213. It contains the same information that we held to be critical in Espinoza and is prepared in essentially the same way. We therefore hold that a properly authenticated WR 424 is admissible in a deportation hearing to prove its contents. I. Procedural Background Jaime Lopez Chavez petitions for review of the order of the BIA that he is deportable to Mexico for entering the United States without inspection. We have jurisdiction under Section 106(a) of the INA. The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act was signed by the President. Lopez Chavez answered that he was born in Nochixtlan. Was a Mexican national and that he entered the United States without inspection on or about January 5. Was then called to the stand. The appeal is timely under the transitional rules because it was filed on March 10.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="691"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/187CB113B4BFAD9988256F090055886E/$file/0272329.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Senior Circuit Judge: Dagoberto Lara Torres and Erika Lara Perez (together Petitioners) timely petitioned for review of three Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) decisions which have since been consolidated before us. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Were married in the United States and have a daughter with United States citizenship. Pineda informed him that an asylum application was one possibility. If the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) were to deny Lara Torres's asylum application. The exact form of which depended on whether he was placed in immigration proceedings before April 1. April 1 was significant. If the INS sought to have him
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="691"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=99-1226.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
LLP were on brief. Were on brief. Although we have jurisdiction to review petitioner's due process challenge to the BIA's finding of deportability. Judicial review is barred because the petitioner failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. I. Some background on the statutory and regulatory scheme for alien citizen marriage is required to understand the pertinent facts of this case. The INS must issue a determination as to whether the facts alleged in the petition are true with respect to the qualifying marriage. The burden at this stage is on the petitioner. If the joint petition is denied. The alien's conditional status is terminated. The alien is deportable under INA 241(a)(1)(D)(i). The burden of proof is placed on the INS to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the facts in the petition are not true. In other words that the marriage was entered into for the purpose of procuring his entry as an immigrant. Although a visa petition was filed immediately. The petitioner was placed into deportation proceedings and was granted voluntary departure by October 25.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="691"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/C5B420AB9BE1011088256D12007CB6C5/$file/0270259.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is AMENDED as follows: The second paragraph in Part V states in part: The Board therefore had no occasion to consider whether. In light of the fact that Contreras Aragon was still on the books. Dec. 168 (1977) (tolling running of time for voluntary departure set by Immigration Judge when appeal is taken to BIA). This language is deleted and replaced with the following language: The Board therefore had no occasion to consider whether. In light of the fact that Contreras Aragon was still on the books. Dec. 168 (1977) (tolling running of time for voluntary departure set by Immigration Judge when appeal is taken to BIA). 5362 ZAZUETA CARRILLO v. Circuit Judge: When the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) decides that an alien is removable from the United States. The BIA may have discretion under 8 U.S.C. § 1229c to grant the alien the privilege of
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="691"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0254p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Harchenko's initial petition for asylum was denied after a hearing on the merits on August 19. Finding that the BIA's denial of asylum and withholding of deportation was supported by substantial evidence in the administrative record. The BIA found that the motion to reopen was untimely and declined to exercise its sua sponte authority to reopen the proceedings pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 3.2(a). The BIA also concluded that it lacked the authority to reinstate the period of voluntary departure because it was denying the motion to reopen. The petition for review of the decision of the BIA is denied. No. 02 3971 Harchenko and his family are natives and citizens of the Ukraine. Harchenko's petition for asylum was denied initially on August 19. The IJ nonetheless assumed Harchenko's claims were credible and concluded that he had failed to establish a likelihood of present or future persecution in the Ukraine based upon his identity as a member of the Jewish faith. An order was entered denying Harchenko's applications for asylum and the withholding of deportation and granting voluntary departure.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="691"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/02C101FB5DFBA1BE88256FEA000A7829/$file/0272329.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Respondent. *Alberto Gonzales is substituted for his predecessor. Is hereby amended as follows: 1. Pineda's allegedly ineffective assistance did not undermine the fairness of the removal proceedings in part because it was given well before the prospect of a hearing materialized.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="689"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/96/09/954156P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
He was subsequently deported. The motion was later granted by the Because we district court after Camacho Bordes presented new evidence. conclude that the plea agreement did not contain an unfulfillable promise and the government did not breach the plea agreement. Camacho Bordes was arrested on various cocaine distribution charges. Two indictments were issued against him. Camacho Bordes admitted that he faced
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="689"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0067n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Sitting by designation. 1 * decision is AFFIRMED. A formal hearing was held on the merits of Petitioner's claims on July 12. Petitioner was the only witness to testify at the hearing. Documentary evidence was presented which included Petitioner's asylum applications and government documents relating to country conditions in Albania. The IJ further found that even if Gjinaj were credible. The government had established that conditions in Albania had changed to such an extent that Petitioner no longer had a well founded fear of being persecuted if he were to return to that country. PETITIONER'S ALLEGATIONS Petitioner alleged in his testimony1 that he was born on June 13. Petitioner was not arrested at this demonstration. He and his father were arrested during a demonstration in Shkodra calling for the overthrow of the Communist regime. Petitioner testified that he and his father were detained for three days and beaten by men wearing References herein to
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="689"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Sep1999/971419.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The issue in this appeal is whether aliens who have committed serious crimes in this country may be detained in custody for prolonged periods when the country of origin refuses to allow the individual's return. We conclude that such detention is permitted by the relevant statutes. Is constitutional if the government provides individualized periodic review of the alien's eligibility for release on parole. We will grant a writ of habeas corpus subject to the right of the Immigration and Naturalization Service to promptly institute appropriate administrative action. Petitioner is a native of Vietnam who was paroled 1 into 1. The term
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="687"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/03/03-1392.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We have consolidated for decision two petitions to review decisions by the Board of Immigration Appeals denying asylum. The petitions reflect the continuing difficulty that the board and the immigration judges are having in giving reasoned explanations for their decisions to deny asylum. He is a citizen of Kazakhstan. There is great enmity between the two groups. In part because of religious differences the Kazakhs are Muslims. The Russians Christian and in part because in the Soviet era the Russians were the top dogs and the roles have now been reversed. The thugs beat him and told him he should leave the country because he was
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="687"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0165p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Are citizens and natives of Albania.1 The adult petitioners. Came to the United States approximately nine months apart and were placed in removal proceedings separately. The family had a shared evidentiary hearing at which they were represented by the same attorney. The board issued separate decisions affirming the * This decision was originally issued as an
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="687"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=99-1564.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With whom Justin Gould was on brief. Were on brief. Diana Westover is a native of Tanzania who married her American fianc‚ after removal proceedings against her commenced in 1992. Westover has remained in the United States for the past eight years while proceedings against her have been pending. In the end those actions are not relevant to the legitimate basis for the removal order. Westover attacks both the finding that she is removable and the denial of her application for adjustment of status. Westover argues (1) that her deportation proceedings should be voided because they were the result of an illegal search and because her warrantless arrest violated the Fourth and Fifth Amendments of the United States Constitution and violated Immigration and Naturalization Service regulations. (3) that the INS should have been estopped from charging her as deportable and instituting removal proceedings against her.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="687"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//apr96/94-4979.opa.html">SAN PEDRO V. UNITED STATES<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>San Pedro v. The district court granted summary judgment for the government holding that the United States Attorney and the Assistant United States Attorneys (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="687"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/apr96/94-4979.opa.html">SAN PEDRO V. UNITED STATES<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>San Pedro v. The district court granted summary judgment for the government holding that the United States Attorney and the Assistant United States Attorneys (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="687"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/91C8E19BD3150AC08825702D00562957/$file/0355136.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
A second under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 against the Bureau of Immigration and Naturalization Service (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="687"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/F6D19B57DA7B0ADC88256FEA000AC773/$file/0371129.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Gonzales is substituted for his predecessor. Circuit Judge: The question before us is whether under our immigration laws asylum may be granted to the parents of a disabled child who has been persecuted in his native land on account of his disability or whether. We are compelled to force the family to return involuntarily to its home country where the child is likely to face further persistent and debilitating persecution. The parent who is seeking asylum and withholding in this case is eligible for the former relief and entitled to the latter. We hold that the parent's spouse and the disabled child are eligible for asylum by virtue of their derivative applications and are also entitled to withholding of removal. I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY Evgueni Tchoukhrova was born in 1991 in Vladivostok. Was retrieved from the disposal bin. She was told that he was severely disabled and that she should
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="687"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/85A39A2FF54692B488256C08005A69A6/$file/0071329.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Concluding that credibility was the central issue in the case. Credibility was the dispositive issue. If his testimony were deemed credible. He would have had no obligation to do so. One night while he was walking with four companions. The group was attacked by heavily armed men. Was captured by the armed men and taken to a secluded area where he was interrogated and beaten.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="687"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/839CE4DE814CDA2788256C320055A87A/$file/9970322.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We hold that the Ekimians' motion to reopen was untimely under 8 C.F.R. § 3.2(c)(2). Was authorized to remain in the United States until March 28. Were also authorized to stay in the United States until March 28. There was a nearly two year delay in the DOL's approval of Ekimian's certification. The BIA found that Ekimian was not a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="687"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/031263.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
ASHCROFT Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. She overstayed her visa and conceded that she was removable under 8 U.S.C.A. § 1227(a)(1)(B) (West 1999 & Supp. 2004). The relief afforded by withholding of removal is not as broad as asylum. An alien entitled to withholding of removal is not thereby entitled to remain in the United States. Withholding of removal simply prevents the alien from being removed to the specific country or countries where it is more likely than not that the persecution will occur. The standard for withholding removal is more stringent than for asylum. It is a mandatory remedy. Or otherwise effect the involuntary return of any person to a country in which there are substantial grounds for believing the person would be in danger of being subjected to torture. Regardless of whether the person is physically present in the United States. Torture is defined as
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="687"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Feb2001/003111.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Because there is a serious question whether the Board's own rules were properly applied in this case. We vacate the BIA's order and remand this matter to per mit the Board to explain: (1) what aspects of Abdulai's narrative it would have been reasonable to expect him to corr oborate. (3) why Abdulai's explanations of why he could not corr oborate certain aspects of his account were insufficient. He was taken into custody by the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS or Service). At an initial hearing Abdulai conceded that he was
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="685"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/EFBDC03CDF5ED75688256CE700827663/$file/0270259.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: When the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) decides that an alien is removable from the United States. The BIA may have discretion under 8 U.S.C. § 1229c to grant the alien the privilege of
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="685"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/1CB73A913DF20927882570FF00507FFB/$file/0370191.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We conclude that the Immigration Judge (IJ) erred in finding (1) that Raj was not credible. In part because he did not believe that Shah was a terrorist. Upon seeing that Raj was with law enforcement personnel. Shah attempted to flee and was shot by the officers and thereafter arrested. Raj was released by the police. Raj and his brother Rajinder were arrested by the local police. Had told the police that Raj and Rajinder were involved in terrorist activities. The brothers were taken to the police station. Where Raj was repeatedly and severely beaten with wooden sticks and leather belts by officers who told him that he would be killed if he did not disclose the identities of Muslim terrorists and reveal information about their planned terrorist activities. Despite Raj's truthful pronouncements that he was not involved with any militant or terrorist organization and could not provide the police with any relevant information. Individuals associated with Shah who were involved with Muslim terrorist organizations had come to the Kumar home seeking revenge for Shah's arrest and death.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="685"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/9FEAD48D2564FED888256D3A007CD783/$file/0170398.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
While documentary evidence showing that an alien was residing in the United States during a particular period may be desirable in establishing the date of entry. As we have many times before. Because homelessness is an all too common state in our society. We reject any suggestion that it is not credible that an VERA VILLEGAS v. We also note that Vera's story is a remarkable one and that the witnesses who testified to the facts regarding his timely presence in the United States are an impressive lot. He was served with an Order to Show Cause (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="683"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/DB452BBF7BD452C288256F46005AF8DC/$file/0272480.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
As well as an appeal from the district court.1 The petition for review is determinative here. The BIA denied as untimely Hamoui's motion to reopen his deportation proceedings to present a claim for relief under the Convention Against Torture.2 The BIA further held that ineffective assistance of counsel did not excuse the untimeliness because there was no prejudice: the evidence already of record and Hamoui's additional showing did not establish that he would be tortured if deported to Syria. Enjoined Hamoui's deportaFour members of Hamoui's family are also petitioners and appellants here. Because their claims are derivative of Hamoui's. Which forbids removal of a person to a country
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="683"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0109p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Decision of the Immigration Judge finding N'Diom's testimony at the hearing to be
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="683"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0190n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Are natives and citizens of Morocco. They were neighbors and began spending time together alone and in secret in 1990. Benayad and Taghzout were able to keep in touch by way of letters because Taghzout was the one who went to the post office to pick up the mail. Taghzout was able to obtain a visa and purchase a plane ticket to the United States. It was refused. Benayad and Taghzout were married in a mosque in Ann Arbor. Was born in August 2002.1 Taghzout's uncle was furious when he learned of the marriage. Taghzout had ignored the Muslim rules followed in Morocco by marrying on her own without someone present who is responsible for her to give her away in marriage. The marriage will not be recognized by 1 A second daughter was born in February 2005. Taghzout's uncle will allegedly be able to separate the family and force Taghzout to marry another man. Benayad believes that his family would not be safe anywhere in Morocco because Morocco is a small country and the uncle could find them. Taghzout's application for asylum was dated September 3.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="683"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19948154.OP.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The en banc court decides that it will not overturn United States v. Fourth and Fifth Circuits have also addressed this issue and joined the First Circuit in holding that section 3583(d) does not permit district courts to order deportation as a condition of supervised release. INS agents received a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="681"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/4C7E7A59DED3524288256BD1007AC052/$file/9970542.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
AbreuReyes was convicted of bribery concerning a program receiving federal funds and of subscribing to a false tax return. The Immigration and Naturalization Service (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="681"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/031352.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Was held to be deportable on July 23. Arguing that the Attorney General was barred from bringing a deportation action against him by the five year statute of limitations on the rescission of wrongfully granted adjustments. Because we conclude that the Immigration and Naturalization Act is ambiguous on this point. While this administrative appeal was still pending. Despite the fact that Asika was not. Were
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="681"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAyLTQyNTJfb3BuLnBkZg==/02-4252_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
A final order was issued after October 30. Is now called
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="681"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/06/03/051405P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Michael Chertoff is substituted for Tom Ridge. Was charged as inadmissible due to two foreign convictions. He was placed in exclusion proceedings because he last had entered the United States pursuant to advance parole. Geach was denied the opportunity to apply for suspension of deportation pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1254 (repealed 1996).2 After he was ordered excluded and had exhausted his administrative appeals. Geach argues that the district court erred in this denial because the advance parole regulation that precludes him from applying for suspension of deportation is ultra vires to § 1254 and violates his right to due process and equal protection. He obtained a grant of advance parole from the former Immigration and Naturalization Service (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="681"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=00-2365.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Were on brief. P.C.</U> was on brief. <U>Circuit Judge</U>.</STRONG></FONT><FONT FACE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="678"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/A2B3056E9BF02F8488256C08005B8BEB/$file/0135867.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We are now presented with the question of whether this statute bears the same meaning for an individual deemed inadmissible to the United States under 8 U.S.C. § 1182. The answer is yes. We are bound by that framework and thus are not called upon to address the scope of any constitutional claims of an inadmissible alien. We recognize that the result might be different were this a constitutional question. Mean that Lin will be released automatically. On remand Lin will be entitled to supervised release if he can demonstrate that there is no significant likelihood of his removal to China in the reasonably foreseeable future. Lin was never legally admitted to the United States. The United States Coast Guard apprehended him off the coast of Guam on a boat that was being used to smuggle aliens in violation of United States immigration laws. Lin was detained by the INS pending the outcome of removal proceedings. INS 10801 was transferred from the detention facility in Guam to a facility in Seattle. It is disputed how many times the INS attempted to secure travel documents for Lin's return trip to China and how many times he refused to cooperate.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="678"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/April2003/023018p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The officer suspected that Pollard was not a U.S. citizen and escorted her to a room for further questioning. Pollard confessed that she was not a U.S. 3 citizen and was subsequently arrested. We will reverse the order dismissing the charges against Pollard and remand to the District Court. Government to monitor the movement of aliens over and within its borders is undoubtedly great. The legislative and executive branches have historically been given great leeway in developing and carrying them out. We will provide a legal and factual overview before detailing the particular facts of this case. Most pertinent to our inquiry is subsection 212(d)(7). Who is denied admission to the United States. If it appears to the examining immigration officer that any person in the United States being examined under this section is prima facie removable from the United States. When the foregoing inspection procedure is applied to any aircraft. Or kept at the airport separate and apart from the general public until they are permitted to board the aircraft.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="678"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/506028B2B8E6533D88256B3B0082D162/$file/9917373.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is substituted for his predecessor. Is substituted for his predecessor. He was convicted of first degree burglary in California state court. He was convicted in California state court of petty theft with priors. Was sentenced to three years imprisonment. A hearing before an Immigration Judge (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="678"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/4CB220513C76DEEF882571A9007D3CA7/$file/0473295.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Zehatye's Arrival in the United States Zehatye is a native and citizen of Eritrea. Explaining that she was a Jehovah's Witness and feared being
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="678"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/962257.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
I. Petitioner Okechukwu Onyeme is a 38 year old male native and citizen of Nigeria. Onyeme obtained a visitor's visa to the United States by fraudulently representing that he was married to a Nigerian woman and had a child. Faced with the fact that he had gained entry into the United States by representing that he was married to a Nigerian citizen. Onyeme's application for permanent residence was approved. The INS discovered that the document was fraudulent and consequently notified Onyeme that it intended to rescind his permanent resident status pursuant to § 246(a) of the INA. [Onyeme] testified before an officer of [the INS] stating that [his] first marriage was legally terminated.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="676"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/C0A0B9C933CED05088256E5A00707ACE/$file/9970541.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Petitioner appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="676"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Aug1999/991115.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
DeSousa was not eligible for a discretionary waiver. Although we agree with the district court that recent changes in the immigration laws have not eliminated district courts' habeas jurisdiction over deportation related 2 claims. At least in cases such as this in which deportation proceedings were instituted before April 1. Does not violate the Fifth Amendment's equal protection guarantee and therefore will reverse. Whether changes in the immigration laws eliminated the district court's habeas jurisdiction over DeSousa's deportation related challenge is the first issue presented by this appeal and is discussed fully below. We have appellate jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. DeSousa was convicted of various crimes including aggravated assault. He was released from prison on December 15. These sections are now renumbered as #8E8E # 237(a)(2)(A)(ii) and 237(a)(2)(A)(iii) and codified at 8 U.S.C. To issue waivers to legal aliens who had traveled abroad voluntarily and were seeking entry back into the country but who would be excludable based on their criminal convictions.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="676"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/0CC7253B99CBBE9D88256AA20001A52F/$file/9735814.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
OPINION PER CURIAM: Appellant Meng Li is a native and citizen of China who seeks judicial review of the merits of the Immigration and Naturalization Service's order of expedited removal under the provisions of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA). Li was detained by the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) in Anchorage. The INS determined Li was attempting 10421 to enter the country by engaging in fraud or misrepresentation. Used its expedited removal authority under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(B)(1)(A)(i) to exclude Li from the country.1 The order itself was issued on a form stating that the INS had determined the named alien to be excludable because of an attempt to enter the country through fraud or misrepresentation. Contending her visa entitled her to entry into the United States and that her exclusion was therefore unlawful. She sought an order admitting her into this country and voiding the five year bar to her reentry that was contained in the removal order. These restrictions are incorporated in 8 U.S.C. § 1252(e).
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="676"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/0AD3EE103D0A530788256A22005C328B/$file/9970541.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Petitioner appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="676"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/A9CB9A982738175188256E5A00707C32/$file/9735814.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
OPINION PER CURIAM: Appellant Meng Li is a native and citizen of China who seeks judicial review of the merits of the Immigration and Naturalization Service's order of expedited removal under the provisions of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA). Li was detained by the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) in Anchorage. The INS determined Li was attempting 10421 to enter the country by engaging in fraud or misrepresentation. Used its expedited removal authority under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(B)(1)(A)(i) to exclude Li from the country.1 The order itself was issued on a form stating that the INS had determined the named alien to be excludable because of an attempt to enter the country through fraud or misrepresentation. Contending her visa entitled her to entry into the United States and that her exclusion was therefore unlawful. She sought an order admitting her into this country and voiding the five year bar to her reentry that was contained in the removal order. These restrictions are incorporated in 8 U.S.C. § 1252(e).
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="674"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0084n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
That order was summarily affirmed by the Board of Immigration Appeals (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="674"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200214324.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is an inadmissible alien who brought this § 2241 petition challenging his indefinite detention. The district court concluded that the INS's determinations that Benitez posed a danger to the community and was likely to engage in further violent behavior were facially legitimate and bona fide reasons to detain Benitez until removal to Cuba is possible. Was stopped at the border.1 Benitez then was paroled into the United States pursuant to § 212(d)(5) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="674"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/04/99-9541.htm">99-9541 -- KOWALCZYK V. IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE -- 04/06/2001<BR></A><BR>
Informed immigration authorities that he wished to apply for asylum.<a href=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="672"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0079n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Entered the United States in 1998 by using a visa that was fraudulently issued. Relying essentially on a Department of State report that concluded that three of Rexha's supporting documents were forgeries. This case is not about the substantive decisions an immigration court may make. It is about the proper procedures that it must employ No. 04 3700 Rexha v. He was then 23 years old. Although the record is not entirely clear. Rexha may also have brought a document issued in 1991 describing the medical treatment that he had received for wounds allegedly sustained as a result of police beatings. Was not legally issued. Rexha requested asylum during the removal proceeding that was initiated against him in April of 1998. Rexha was the sole witness at the merits hearing on his asylum claim before an immigration court. He was allegedly jailed for two weeks and beaten by the communist police for tearing down a portrait of Enver Hoxha. He alleged that he was beaten by the secret police for reading a democratic newspaper.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="672"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/79E4DEFD5915DCD688256BC0007CBAE3/$file/0071478.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
She would have been eligible for suspension of deportation. Because we hold that Jimenez Angeles' case is governed by IIRIRA's permanent rules. Because we hold that those rules are not impermissibly retroactive when applied to her. They have 7500 obtained jobs and have had two children while living in the United States.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="672"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200512927.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: The issue presented in this petition for review is whether the Immigration Judge gave reasoned consideration to the application for withholding of removal of Liana Tan. BACKGROUND Tan and her husband were admitted with F 1 student visas as non immigrant visitors to the United States on February 7. Who is Christian and of Chinese ethnicity. Alleged that she and her family have been harassed by Muslim Indonesians based on religion and race. She lived in a Muslim neighborhood and was continually harrassed by Muslims who called her
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="672"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/041835p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is whether the 180 day time limitation is mandatory and jurisdictional. Or whether it is analogous to a statute of limitations and therefore can be equitably tolled. If it is the latter. We will remand this case to the Board of Immigration Appeals (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="670"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/May2003/014477p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We are primarily presented with the question whether the BIA improperly deviated from its existing interpretation of the Immigration and Naturalization Act's (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="670"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAyLTQ2MzEgdyBFcnJhdGEucGRm/02-4631%20w%20Errata.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Because petitioner's application for asylum was found to be untimely by the Immigration Judge (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="670"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0132n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
(4) the Board of Immigration Appeals's affirmance of the immigration court's decision without opinion was unconstitutional. We conclude that the decision to deny Gjoni's asylum claim was supported by substantial evidence and that the Gjoni v. Gjoni's petition for review is DENIED. I. Gjoni is a thirty one year old male and a native citizen of Albania. Gjoni was active throughout his membership in the Democratic Party. He was elected the General Secretary of the Democratic Party in his hometown of Rreshen. Was persecuted by Albania's Socialist government beginning in 1997 as a result of their membership in the Democratic Party. During which he was beaten by police. Although Rreshen was in need of physicians. Gjoni and his brother Leonard were shot at by an armed man and Leonard was wounded. Gjoni took him to the Rreshen Emergency Room where surgery was performed to remove the bullet. Gjoni claims he was arrested by police and held for three days despite his requests for a lawyer or a court hearing. Gjoni asserts he was maltreated and beaten.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="670"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/033211p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
For a period of five years.1 A proper showing of
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="670"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/01/01-1608.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Which No. 01 1608 3 was closer to home for both Selimi and his attorney. The INS opposed the motion on the ground that its witnesses (the inspectors who had detained Selimi and taken his sworn statement) were located in New York. The New York INS inspectors would have to testify. This time conceding that he had violated section 212(a)(6)(E) and was excludable on that basis. Confirmed his concession that he was excludable pursuant to section 212(a)(6). Selimi offered into evidence a written statement from his wife representing that it was she rather than Selimi who had paid for the falsified passports. The denial of Selimi's requests for asylum and withholding of deportation are not at issue in this appeal. 4 No. 01 1608 paid $4. She was afraid to make the trip by herself. He acceded to his wife's plan to enter the U.S. illegally because he was under
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="670"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0076n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Because the record is insufficient to consider two colorable arguments made by petitioner. Was lawfully admitted to the United States in 1979 and became a permanent resident in 1982. Baidas was convicted on September 30. Jenifer was sentenced to probation. Baidas was convicted of attempted failure to return rental property valued over $100. He was again sentenced to probation. Baidas was convicted of two counts of attempted third degree criminal sexual misconduct. He was sentenced to two years of probation. He was sentenced to 365 days in jail. Was later reduced to 336 days in jail. On this conviction he was also sentenced to 336 days in jail. Baidas was convicted of passing a no account check. The 1998 convictions are not at issue. Under which Baidas was alleged to be removable 2 No. 02 2495 Baidas v. Under which Baidas was alleged to be removable for having been convicted of an aggravated felony.2 On January 20. Baidas was found subject to removal by an immigration judge by reason of having been convicted of two or more crimes involving moral turpitude.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="670"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/datefile/datefile.htm">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
End page heading. > <div align=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="670"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/03/03-1386.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The immigration judge rejected Ememe's testimony because he found that it was not supported by any corroborating evidence. Ememe's credible fear in 2 No. 03 1386 terview was conducted through a translator of Italian. Whereas her testimony before the immigration judge was aided by a translator of Amharic. Absent from the immigration judge's assessment of Ememe's credibility was any consideration of Ememe's ability to comprehend the questions posed at the credible fear interview. Because we conclude that a determination of Ememe's Italian language skills is of crucial import to the disposition of her asylum and withholding of removal applications. Feruz Ememe is a twenty seven year old ethnic Oromo from Ethiopia who claims to have been tortured while detained by the Mengistu and Tigrian regimes. Ememe testified that she was born in Addis Ababa. That she is a native speaker of the Amharic language. Ememe represented that her father was a supporter of the Oromo Liberation Front (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="668"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/567AE8B34965691188257313005663B4/$file/0576201.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
I. BACKGROUND2 Petitioner is a citizen of Ethiopia who entered the United States as a refugee and became a lawful permanent resident (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="668"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/7580FE2A6647C47888257015004E785C/$file/0271656.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Gonzales is substituted for his predecessor. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 1252(a)(1). Are citi 6122 THOMAS v. Michelle Thomas is the principal asylum applicant. Tyneal are derivative applicants. Michelle Thomas was the only petitioner who testified at the hearing. The Thomases came to the United States to avoid threats of physical violence and intimidation to which they were subjected because of abuses committed by Michelle's father inlaw.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="668"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/403F1BD043115ACD882571B50057CB0E/$file/0373930.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is eligible for some deference under Skidmore. Therefore determine that Garcia Quintero is eligible for cancellation of removal. Therefore the removal proceeding should have been terminated. Thus the removal proceeding was proper. He is married to a lawful permanent resident (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="668"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/2494463A20ADD9FB88256DEF005C20C8/$file/0271311.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We hold that the Board's denial of withholding cannot be sustained because of the lack of any evidence that reasonable grounds exist to believe the petitioners are a danger to the security of the United States. FACTS Cheema is a Sikh. He is a lawyer and a member of the Sikh Lawyers Association. He was released ten days later without charges. Cheema was arrested and questioned as to their whereabouts. When he was unable to say. He was taken into the jail yard. The next day he was again tortured on the pulley. Twenty days after his arrest he was released without charges. He was unable to walk and was hospitalized for a month. Cheema was again arrested and taken to Amritsar for interrogation. He was beaten and his right leg broken by his police interrogators. He was brought before a magistrate. Who ordered him taken to a hospital where his broken leg was set. He was discharged from custody. Charges against him were withdrawn. He was elected general secretary of this CHEEMA v. Cheema was contacted by him by telephone from Pakistan in 1996.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="668"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Dec2001/012398.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The issue before us is a limited one. The only issue is whether appellant. Such a determination is provided for lawful permanent residents charged as alien terrorists. S 1226(c) (2001). 1 The petition is directed to Charles W. To avoid confusion we will. Patel is a 55 year old native and citizen of India. Patel was convicted upon a plea of guilty in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri of the offense of harboring an undocumented alien in violation of INA S 274(a)(1)(A)(iii). Patel's conviction was based on his employment of the alien. Both in his brief and in oral argument (without contradiction by the government) and the government's Response to the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus in the District Court is in agreement. The government stated that it believed the home probation followed the prison sentence but there is some ambiguity in the record. 4 Although persons who are confined to a penal institution for 180 days or more cannot establish good moral character. Patel has not lost his eligibility for naturalization because his jail sentence was less than 180 days.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="668"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/May2004/023278p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The principal issue presented by this appeal is whether this Court has the authority to reinstate a grant of voluntary departure and extend the departure date previously ordered by an Immigration Judge (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="668"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/E6D954F034EE47468825734C00588FE4/$file/0570605.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: This case requires us to determine whether aliens who are
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="668"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/EB13B5CAA62364FD88256E5A00707B5B/$file/9970596.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Partial Dissent by Judge Pregerson *John Ashcroft is substituted for his predecessor. Is the proper respondent in a petition for review of an order of removal. The BIA determined that Petitioners were statutorily ineligible for cancellation of removal as non permanent residents under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1) because neither had a qualifying relative for the purposes of § 1229b(b)(1)(D). Montero Hernandez and Montero Martinez are father and son. They are natives and citizens of Mexico who entered the United States in 1986. Alleging that Petitioners were removable under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(A)(i) because they had entered the United States without inspection. They both conceded that they did not have a qualifying relative under § 1229b(b)(1)(D). Although Montero Hernandez had an adult daughter who was a lawful permanent resident. He acknowledged that she was too old to qualify as a child under the INS regulations. Petitioners appealed to the BIA arguing that they were entitled to cancellation of removal. They argue in their petition that the BIA and IJ erred in concluding that Montero Hernandez's adult daughter is not a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="668"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=02-1541.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Was on the brief for petitioner.</SPAN> <P><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="668"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0405n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The petition is denied. Gonzales withholding of his deportation.1 His request was denied on January 28.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="668"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/B7C8CA340328199388256A55005A57A8/$file/9970596.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Partial Dissent by Judge Pregerson *John Ashcroft is substituted for his predecessor. Is the proper respondent in a petition for review of an order of removal. The BIA determined that Petitioners were statutorily ineligible for cancellation of removal as non permanent residents under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1) because neither had a qualifying relative for the purposes of § 1229b(b)(1)(D). Montero Hernandez and Montero Martinez are father and son. They are natives and citizens of Mexico who entered the United States in 1986. Alleging that Petitioners were removable under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(A)(i) because they had entered the United States without inspection. They both conceded that they did not have a qualifying relative under § 1229b(b)(1)(D). Although Montero Hernandez had an adult daughter who was a lawful permanent resident. He acknowledged that she was too old to qualify as a child under the INS regulations. Petitioners appealed to the BIA arguing that they were entitled to cancellation of removal. They argue in their petition that the BIA and IJ erred in concluding that Montero Hernandez's adult daughter is not a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="665"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/06/97-9513.htm">97-9513 -- RIVERA-JIMENEZ V. IMMIGRATION & NATURALIZATION SERVICE -- 06/02/2000<BR></A><BR>
Petitioners were served with orders to show cause as to why they should not be deported as having entered the United States without inspection. While the appeal was pending. Was not brief. Petitioners must show that
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="665"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/01/99-9540.htm">99-9540 -- GARCIA V. IMMIGRATION & NATURALIZATION SERVICE -- 01/19/2001<BR></A><BR>
Tapia Garcia appeals a Board of Immigration Appeals' decision affirming an immigration judge's ruling that Petitioner is removable as a result of his conviction for commission of an aggravated felony. After concluding Petitioner is an alien subject to removal for commission of an aggravated felony. Was convicted in Idaho for driving under the influence (DUI) in violation of section 18 8004(5) of the Idaho Code. Which provides for removal of an
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="665"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0371n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Vang
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="665"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/11/01-1250.htm">01-1250 -- RILEY V. IMMIGRATION & NATURALIZATION SERVICE -- 11/05/2002<BR></A><BR>
Decision denying his motion to reconsider his deportation proceedings. <p> Appellant is a native of Egypt and a citizen of Lebanon. He was ordered deported from the United States in 1991 based on charges that he remained in the United States longer than the time permitted under his non immigrant visitor's visa. Appellant's proceedings were then continued indefinitely pending his opportunity to apply for temporary protected status. The motion was granted and the Board of Immigration Appeals dismissed the appeal. Appellant was in custody for over two years. Appellant is under supervised release and has apparently begun to cooperate with the INS. <p> In 2000. Appellant claimed that his prior counsel's performance was ineffective because counsel did not prove Appellant's eligibility for asylum and because counsel did not file the suspension of deportation application until 1995 (when he could have filed it as early as 1992). The district court held that Appellant's detention was not unconstitutional in light of <u>Ho v.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="663"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/FC1F58A13A8C97858825714E007E1243/$file/0370191.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is hereby amended as follows: Delete the section beginning
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="663"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-3205.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Because the en banc court is evenly divided. Elite failed to verify that all of its new employees were authorized to work in the United States. Zamora was a Mexican citizen who had been a permanent legal resident of the United States since 1987. Zamora also filled out an I 9 form truthfully indicating that he was a Mexican citizen and a lawful permanent resident of the United States. Elite received a tip that the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS)(3) was going to investigate warehouses in the area. Elite was particularly concerned about such an investigation in light of its earlier hiring practices in June 2000. This investigation indicated that someone other than Zamora had been using the same social security number that he was using.(4) The investigation turned up similar problems with thirty five other employees' social security numbers. Tucker followed this same procedure with the other thirty five employees whose social security numbers raised concerns.(5) The memorandum Tucker gave Zamora and the other affected workers read: It is required by federal law that all employees produce documents.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="663"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0193n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Bazzi contends the Board's determination that his qualifying marriage was entered into for the purpose of obtaining entry into the United States is not supported by substantial evidence. Because the Board's determination is supported by reasonable. Because Bazzi's other claims of error are without merit. The petition for review is DENIED. I. BACKGROUND Bazzi is a forty two year old native and citizen of Lebanon. Which was granted by the Wayne County Circuit Court in November 1989. The judgment of annulment was entered after an evidentiary hearing and was based upon the circuit judge's finding that Bazzi had committed a fraud on Faraj in order to gain entry into the United States. Before the marriage was annulled. Charging he was deportable on two grounds. The INS alleged Bazzi was deportable under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) § 241(a)(9)(B). As an alien whose conditional permanent resident status was terminated because the Attorney General determined his qualifying marriage was entered into for the purpose of procuring his entry into the United States.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="663"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/June2004/033295np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
He was without authority to stay removal proceedings pending the INS's determination of the waiver application. That denial was summarily affirmed by the Board of Immigration Appeals (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="661"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/August2002/022328.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
In this appeal we conclude that the Attorney General did not act arbitrarily or capriciously in denying an alien's request to have his dependency status determined by a state juvenile court. We also conclude that the federal courts have jurisdiction to review the ruling under the Administrative Procedure Act. We will affirm the District Court's order denying relief to the plaintiff alien. Plaintiff is a young man. There is some indication in the record that the plaintiff may be a citizen of Morocco. 2 who arrived in Newark. His request was denied by an immigration judge and that decision was affirmed by the Board of Immigration Appeals. Plaintiff asserts that he lived with his parents in Algeria until they were both killed by a bomb when he was about ten years of age. He then lived with an aunt in Algeria until he was twelve years old. He told the INS on his initial interview that he was born on July 25. The dentist opined that plaintiff was more than 18 years of age. This provision applies to immigrants who have been declared dependent by a juvenile court that has deemed them eligible for long term foster care because of abuse.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="661"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/4F3AFBBA7C4018C388256E8C005AADA8/$file/0171407.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
2003 is AMENDED as follows: 1. The text of the footnote reads: 11 There is no need to remand to the BIA under INS v. The INS represented that:
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="661"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Feb2004/031148np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Removal proceedings were initiated against petitioners Jose Joson Ventosa. They also allege the Immigration Judge's decision was not supported by substantial evidence. We will deny the Ventosas' petition and affirm the BIA's order of removal. Their application alleged they were victims of extortion by the New People's Army (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="661"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/byDate/Sep2004/Sep13/03-20126-CV0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Facts and Proceedings Below Mario Roberto Madriz Alvarado (Madriz) is a native and citizen of Guatemala who entered the United States without We affirm. inspection on September 26. When he was eight years old. Of less than one gram of lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD) and was granted a deferred adjudication under Texas Code of Criminal Procedure article 42.12 section 5. The Immigration and Naturalization Lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD) is a Schedule 1 controlled substance under the Texas Controlled Substance Act. Knowing possession (other than pursuant to a prescription or practitioner's order) of
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="661"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/byDate/Aug2004/Aug27/03-20126-CV0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Facts and Proceedings Below Mario Roberto Madriz Alvarado (Madriz) is a native and citizen of Guatemala who entered the United States without inspection on September 26. When he was eight years old. Of less than one gram of lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD) and was granted a deferred adjudication under Texas Code of Criminal Procedure article 42.12 section 5. The Immigration and Naturalization Lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD) is a Schedule 1 controlled substance under the Texas Controlled Substance Act. Knowing possession (other than pursuant to a prescription or practitioner's order) of
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="661"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0557n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Was admitted into the United States as a lawful permanent resident in 1979. He was nine years old. He and his family are Coptic Christians. Coptic Christians are the largest Christian minority group in the Middle East. They have been subject to persecution for decades by both the Egyptian government and rogue Islamic militant groups. He served approximately six years in prison and was released in 1995. He was charged with removability under § 237(a)(2)(A)(iii) of INA. Was convicted of an aggravated felony. Including a crime of violence for which the term of imprisonment is at least one year. He was also charged with removability under § 237(a)(2)(C) of the INA. Was convicted of a firearms offense. The immigration laws of the United States have always stated that aliens may be deported or excluded from entry for the commission of certain crimes. Aliens were deportable (now known as removable) upon conviction for two crimes of
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="659"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/A559277C874C3B7A88256E92006DD53F/$file/0272145.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The INS ceased to exist as an independent agency within the Department of Justice (DOJ) and its functions were transferred to the newly formed Department of Homeland Security. Which is a component of the DOJ. Is substituted for the INS. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(3) (2000) (respondent is Attorney General where immigration court proceeding commenced after April 1. ASHCROFT 6293 gration Judge (IJ) denied Singh's application for asylum because she found that he was not credible. I Singh is a Sikh from the Punjab state in India. That he was arrested three times on account of his political opinion. Singh was unsure of the month. He testified that it was actually January 20 after he had obtained a death certificate that indicates his father died on January 29. Singh testified that he was arrested with his father and was beaten. As a result he suffered a broken nose and his whole face was badly swollen. Was treated for a month. The letter is dated contemporaneously with the treatment and written in English (which Singh did not understand in 1990).
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="659"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/09/01-9515.htm">01-9515 -- OSEI V. IMMIGRATION & NATURALIZATION SERVICE -- 09/24/2002<BR></A><BR>
<strong>remands</strong> to the Board for further proceedings. <p> <center><strong>BACKGROUND</strong></center> <p> Osei is a native and citizen of Ghana who entered the United States on July 17. Asserting that he was deportable because he had overstayed his visa without INS authorization. A hearing on the merits of Osei's asylum application was conducted before the immigration court in September of 1997. Osei was represented by counsel at the hearing. Concluding as follows: (1) Osei failed to adduce evidence demonstrating that he was actually related to the deposed head of state. That persecution ended long before he left Ghana and he did not have a well founded fear of persecution at the time he left. (3) Osei's claim that he suffered religious persecution was not supported by record evidence and was contrary to reports issued by the State Department. (4) Osei's arrest and incarceration in 1983 did not amount to past persecution because the arrest was routine and Osei was not mistreated. <p> Osei filed a <em>pro se</em> notice of appeal with the Board in October of 1997.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="659"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/7D798367323A8D3E88256A0A006280CF/$file/9870828.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: In 1996 Naseem Salman Al Harbi (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="659"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/467413A354A0170888256F8D001206D9/$file/0273947.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
I. BACKGROUND Salvador Azarte and Celia Castellon (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="659"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2003/07/02-9513a.htm">02-9513A -- DURAN-HERNANDEZ V. ASHCROFT -- 07/21/2003<BR></A><BR>
2003 is granted. A copy of the published opinion is attached. <p> Entered for the Court <p> PATRICK FISHER. Was ordered removed from the United States in 1998 after he falsely claimed United States citizenship at the U.S.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="659"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/D71BAC8F133CA78388256E5A00707A85/$file/9870828.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: In 1996 Naseem Salman Al Harbi (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="659"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/5B409D97772F677488257075004E70F3/$file/0371600.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Gonzales is substituted for his predecessor. Did not have a well founded fear of future persecution. The IJ denied Smolniakova's request to review the termination of her conditional resident status on the ground that Smolniakova had not met her
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="659"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=99-1852.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Gonzalez</U> was on brief. Were on brief. BACKGROUND</STRONG> </FONT></P> <P><FONT FACE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="659"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/A300D2772152462C8825726500806560/$file/0572761.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Seeks relief from removal arguing that the proceedings before the Immigration Court should have been terminated because the name and title of the issuing officer were not legible on the Notice to Appear (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="657"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-1181.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
He was intercepted by the Immigration and Naturalization Service. Its responsibilities were divided among three distinct agencies formed within the new Department of Homeland Security. Because the actions Petitioner challenges in this appeal were taken prior to this reorganization. In this opinion we will refer to the relevant government agency as the INS. <hr> his requests for permission to reapply for entry and for adjustment of status. I. Background Petitioner Adelfo Berrum Garcia was apprehended attempting to cross into the United States on January 9. The INS notified Petitioner that he was prohibited from reentering or seeking to reenter the United States for five years. The Attorney General may adjust the status of the alien to that of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent resident if (A) the alien is eligible to receive animmigrant visa and is admissible to the United States for permanent residence. (B) an immigrant visa is immediately available to the alien at the time the application is filed.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="657"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/60BFFFB930B70B4F88256DB3007DF0F3/$file/0270455.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The application was not granted. The Immigration Judge denied Lopez Urenda's motion (1) to terminate removal proceedings and (2) to institute deportation proceedings in which Lopez Urenda may have been eligible for suspension of deportation. Are impermissibly retroactive when applied to his case. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Lopez Urenda is a 36 year old native and citizen of Mexico. Are United States citizens. Bolded warning that: Applicants who are in the United States illegally are subject to exclusion or deportation if their asylum claims are not granted by an Asylum Officer. I believe that the Mexican state is very unstable and anything could provoke a war throughout the country.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="657"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/AC8D742B944A045C88256A41005B53CF/$file/9970448.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The IJ held that the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) failed to meet its threshold burden of establishing that Chau is an alien. Entitles him to a determination by this court that he is a United States national and. We have jurisdiction to consider Chau's citizenship claim under INA § 242(b)(5). Chau's claim to United States citizenship is nonfrivolous. I. Chau was born in Saigon. His mother is Mai Chau. Charging that he is deportable as an alien convicted of two crimes of moral turpitude. Chau conceded he had been convicted of the two crimes but asserted that he is a citizen and therefore not deportable. Chau introduced evidence that his father was a United States soldier stationed in Vietnam during the Vietnam con 1 This provision has been recodified as INA § 237(a)(2)(A)(ii). Once removal proceedings have been initiated. A petition for review under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(5) is the only avenue by which a person may seek a judicial determination of his or her status as a national of the United States.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="657"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=00-1611.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</SPAN><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="657"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/nov2002/02-13405.opn.html">UNITED STATES V. CLARKE (11/22/2002, NO. 02-13405)<BR></A><BR>
Marlin Anthony Clarke was convicted of one count of illegally reentering the United States after being deported. Arguing that he was untimely prosecuted in violation of the five year limitations period in 18 U.S.C. § 3282. We conclude that Clarke was
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="657"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//nov2002/02-13405.opn.html">UNITED STATES V. CLARKE (11/22/2002, NO. 02-13405)<BR></A><BR>
Marlin Anthony Clarke was convicted of one count of illegally reentering the United States after being deported. Arguing that he was untimely prosecuted in violation of the five year limitations period in 18 U.S.C. § 3282. We conclude that Clarke was
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="657"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/E552744ED52FD08C88256E5A00707C47/$file/9971591.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The BIA found that Valderrama's hearing testimony was not credible and concluded that she had not carried her burden of establishing eligibility for asylum and withholding of deportation pursuant to the Immigration and Naturalization Act (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="657"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-9524.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
No brief was filed. Gonzales is substituted for John Ashcroft as the Respondent in this action. (2) This order and judgment is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case. That were issued on or after October 31. The Board's decision was sent to Riley's attorney. He was arrested and transferred to the Wackenhutt Corrections Center. Its functions were transferred to the U.S. Although Riley was eligible in 1992. Riley continued to believe his application for suspension of deportation was pending before the immigration judge. He wrote that he had not heard anything about his application for suspension of deportation and was not happy with his status. The Motion to <hr> Reopen and Remand is not in the record of the immigration proceedings.(3) While in prison. The judge also advised Riley that the record indicated he was still represented by an attorney. You stated that you believe you are eligible to be considered for suspension of deportation and that (3) Riley claims his attorney told him the motion was never filed because
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="657"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200313275.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Was convicted of a controlled substance offense in state court. The conviction was expunged after Petitioner served one year of probation. Which resulted in an order of removal that was affirmed by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA). Contending he is entitled to cancellation of removal because his state court conviction was expunged. We conclude the state conviction is indeed a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="657"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/4CCC93DD959542CD88256E5A00707B1A/$file/9970448.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The IJ held that the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) failed to meet its threshold burden of establishing that Chau is an alien. Entitles him to a determination by this court that he is a United States national and. We have jurisdiction to consider Chau's citizenship claim under INA § 242(b)(5). Chau's claim to United States citizenship is nonfrivolous. I. Chau was born in Saigon. His mother is Mai Chau. Charging that he is deportable as an alien convicted of two crimes of moral turpitude. Chau conceded he had been convicted of the two crimes but asserted that he is a citizen and therefore not deportable. Chau introduced evidence that his father was a United States soldier stationed in Vietnam during the Vietnam con 1 This provision has been recodified as INA § 237(a)(2)(A)(ii). Once removal proceedings have been initiated. A petition for review under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(5) is the only avenue by which a person may seek a judicial determination of his or her status as a national of the United States.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="657"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/4ABB7B70D572D24588256AA7005B50B4/$file/9971591.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The BIA found that Valderrama's hearing testimony was not credible and concluded that she had not carried her burden of establishing eligibility for asylum and withholding of deportation pursuant to the Immigration and Naturalization Act (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="657"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/5C775474D4E4346188256DE8006FCC05/$file/0270455.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is amended as follows: Delete sentence reading:
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="655"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/E6D2DA53FB3FECCC88256D2B007F57D0/$file/0071329.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Appearing at 298 F.3d 852 (9th Cir. 2002) are AMENDED. The petition for panel rehearing and the petition for rehearing en banc are DENIED. Concluding that credibility was the central issue in the case. Credibility was the dispositive issue. Or as a constitutional minimum affording Manimbao due notice that his credibility was at issue and a fair opportunity to respond. If his testimony were deemed credible. He would have had no obligation to do so. One night while he was walking with four companions. The group was attacked by heavily armed men. Was captured by the armed men and taken to a secluded area where he was interrogated and beaten.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="655"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/04/11/032818P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The immigration judge found that the petitioners were credible and subject to past persecution in their home country of Peru. De Brenner
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="652"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/04/03/023504P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Yohannes Habtemicael was born in January 1965 in Asmara. Asmara is today the capital city of Eritrea. The territory making up Eritrea was part of Ethiopia from 1952 until 1993. Habtemicael was a citizen of Ethiopia and was opposed to the EPLF on ideological grounds. Habtemicael was hired by the Ethiopian Relief and Rehabilitation Commission (ERRC) in November 1984 to supervise children's feeding centers funded by the United Nations. In the course of this work he was sent by the ERRC to Barentu. Habtemicael was forced by the EPLF to help with its wounded. He and other able bodied men were also pressed into military service as replacements for fallen revolutionary soldiers. He was told by other captives that any sign of opposition to the EPLF would lead to severe torture. Habtemicael was collecting firewood some distance from the EPLF camp with twenty to thirty other men. Two EPLF soldiers were killed. Habtemicael and his companions were able to escape with their lives. He was told that he would be deported unless he converted from Christianity to Islam.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="652"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/04/06/023504P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Yohannes Habtemicael was born in January 1965 in Asmara. Asmara is today the capital city of Eritrea. The territory making up Eritrea was part of Ethiopia from 1952 until 1993. Habtemicael was a citizen of Ethiopia and was opposed to the EPLF on ideological grounds. Habtemicael was hired by the Ethiopian Relief and Rehabilitation Commission (ERRC) in November 1984 to supervise children's feeding centers funded by the United Nations. In the course of this work he was sent by the ERRC to Barentu. Habtemicael was forced by the EPLF to help with its wounded. He and other able bodied men were also pressed into military service as replacements for fallen revolutionary soldiers. He was told by other captives that any sign of opposition to the EPLF would lead to severe torture. Habtemicael was collecting firewood some distance from the EPLF camp with twenty to thirty other men. Two EPLF soldiers were killed. Habtemicael and his companions were able to escape with their lives. He was told that he would be deported unless he converted from Christianity to Islam.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="652"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/02/97-9508.htm">97-9508 -- PEREDA-ACOSTA V. IMMIGRATION & NATURALIZATION SERVICE -- 02/13/1998<BR></A><BR>
The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <p> Petitioner seeks review of a final order of the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) finding her deportable and denying her request for asylum or withholding of deportation.<a href=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="652"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=94-1224.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Murphy & May was on brief. Were on brief. An alien who was deported following a state narcotics conviction. 8 U.S.C. 1105a(c) (1988).1 The courts of appeals have divided on whether this statute signifies what it appears to say. BACKGROUND Petitioner is a native and citizen of the Dominican Republic. He was convicted in a Massachusetts state court 1The statute provides in material part that
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="652"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/sept95/93-5258.opa.html">ACOSTA-MONTERO V. INS<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Acosta Montero v. Who are returning to a lawful unrelinquished domicile [in the United States] of seven consecutive years....
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="652"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//sept95/93-5258.opa.html">ACOSTA-MONTERO V. INS<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Acosta Montero v. Who are returning to a lawful unrelinquished domicile [in the United States] of seven consecutive years....
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="652"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/02/02-2964T.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judges. * This opinion is being initially released in typescript form. We conclude that venue is proper in this court and that a stay is appropriate pending our plenary review of this matter. Will suffer irreparable injury if she is removed from the United States at this time. She has demonstrated that the INS has failed to consider that her four year old United States citizen daughter will be subjected to the brutal practice known as female genital mutilation (commonly referred to as
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="652"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/02/02-2964.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We conclude that venue is proper in this court and that a stay is appropriate pending our plenary review of this matter. An United States OE This opinion originally was released in typescript form. 2 No. 02 2964 citizen. Will suffer irreparable injury if she is removed from the United States at this time. She has demonstrated that the INS has failed to consider that her four year old United States citizen daughter will be subjected to the brutal practice known as female genital mutilation (commonly referred to as
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="652"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA0LTMxNzctcHJfb3BuLnBkZg==/04-3177-pr_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
1 which order was based on Spina's 1994 Connecticut conviction for first degree manslaughter in connection with the stabbing death of his estranged wife. Spina submits (1) that time he spent in pre conviction detention was not
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="652"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=93-2384.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This is a petition for review of two decisions of Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA). Was admitted to the United States as a visitor for pleasure for six months. The INS office was closed for the day. Petitioner was given $5.00 for gas to attend this hearing. 3 3 In an affidavit appended to the brief. The INS offices were closed. Petitioner stated that he was given the April 26. Was the result of having been handed this letter. The BIA expressed doubt concerning petitioner's involvement with a Baptist Church when he had stated in his asylum application that he was a Moslem. It was approximately 2:00 p.m. He stopped and discovered that there was no water in the radiator. It was 3:15 p.m. Petitioner stated that he had tried to gain access to the INS offices but was stopped by security guards from entering the building. 1991 and was informed that he would be receiving a letter with instructions. When petitioner was stopped at a traffic check and told that there was an outstanding immigration warrant for his arrest for failure to surrender for deportation.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="652"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2004/01/02-9546.htm">02-9546 -- YUK V. ASHCROFT -- 01/20/2004<BR></A><BR>
Are natives and citizens of Cambodia.<a href=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="652"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA2LTE5NzMtYWdfb3BuLnBkZg==/06-1973-ag_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We conclude that we have the authority under 28 U.S.C. § 2349(b). To grant stays of voluntary departure orders and that the appropriate standard for granting such stays is the same as the standard for granting stays of removal orders. A stay of his voluntary departure order is warranted. Circuit Judge: This motion presents an issue of first impression in this Circuit: whether we have jurisdiction under the Immigration and Nationality Act. We hold that we have the authority under 28 U.S.C. § 2349(b). We also hold that a BIA order granting voluntary departure with an alternate order of removal is a final order of removal subject to judicial review under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. A stay of his voluntary departure order is warranted here. 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 I. The following is clear from the materials submitted by the parties. Was apprehended by the United States Customs and Border Protection at White River Junction. Thapa was unable to provide a document demonstrating his legitimate entry into the United States.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="652"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0180p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
BACKGROUND Blaise Mapouya1 is an ethnic Mbochi born in Brazzaville. After recounting that Mapouya was subjected to violence and torture in the days of the 1997 98 Congolese civil war. The application included Mapouya's assertion that he would not return to Congo as long as Denis Sassou Nguesso is president. The INS charged that Mapouya was removable from the United States because he entered the country illegally. A recounting of recent events is necessary to better understand the details of Mapouya's testimony. Which is located in the southeast region of the country. Strong ethnic overtones are present in Congolese politics. The 1997 98 civil war was no different. Which are one of the larger Bantu ethnic groups. Are located primarily in the northern regions of Congo. There seems to be some confusion as to whether Petitioner's name is Blaise Mapouya. The precise dates are not at issue. The government did not allege that the asylum application was untimely. Therefore the application is treated as timely.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="652"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/031930p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Although Li submits that he and his wife were threatened with sterilization. His more significant claim is one of economic persecution: he and his wife were subjected to a fine equivalent to twenty months' salary. Were effectively blacklisted from other government employment. Was deliberate retaliation for having had four children. The BIA assumed that Li was credible. While the contours of the doctrine are still developing. While the issue is close. This rigorous standard was met here. We will grant Li's petition for review and remand to the BIA for further proceedings on the credibility issue. I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY Li is a citizen of the People's Republic of China. He was employed as a mechanic in governmentowned factories since 1970. His wife was employed as a nurse. Their first child was born in 1984. China allowed couples to have two children. Forced his wife to have an IUD implanted. Li testified that the fine was equivalent to twenty months' salary. He submitted a receipt for 1200 yuan that indicated the fine was imposed for
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="652"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/982005.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Chen maintains that he is entitled to refugee status because he has a well founded fear. The Board held that Chen's fears are not wellfounded. After Chen was seriously injured in a work related accident. The Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) issued orders requiring Chen and Wei Kai Li to show cause for their failure to comply with the terms under which they were admitted to the country. Chen and Wei Kai Li have two children. Was born in Shanghai in May 1990. They 2 secured a permit to have the child only after making payments (characterized by them variously as
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="652"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/5BF6EA0C6BD105AC88256BF7007FC63D/$file/0170055.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Opinion by Judge Canby *Judge Politz was originally a member of this panel and heard argument in this case. Judge Fernandez was drawn as a replacement. Judge Fernandez was provided with a tape of the oral argument as well as the briefs and other materials received by the other members of the panel. 9943 9946 VIRK v. Circuit Judge: The issue before us is whether the Board of Immigration Appeals (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="652"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=03-3671_056.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
John Doe is the pseudonym of a former lieutenant in El Salvador's army who has sought asylum in the United States. He has been permitted to litigate his claim pseudonymously because of his fear that if he is returned to El Salvador he will be killed. Despite the novelty and importance of the case the Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed the immigration judge's decision without opinion. 2 No. 03 3671 The roots of the case are in a notorious episode in El Salvador's vicious civil war. Which raged from 1980 to 1992 and included such atrocities as the murder of a Catholic archbishop while he was celebrating mass. Doe in 1989 was an army lieutenant assigned as an instructor at the military academy in San Salvador. A Jesuit who was the president of a university in San Salvador and was regarded as an ally of the rebels. The two agreed that the order to kill the Jesuit was immoral. Doe walked about the university grounds (with which he was not familiar unlike the members of the Atlacatl Battalion. Were killed.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="652"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/00/09/972854P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Denied her application for suspension of Petitioner has a husband and two daughters who were issued Orders to Show Cause at the same time as Petitioner. Her daughters' cases were consolidated with that 1 deportation. Jurisdiction in this court is proper based upon 8 U.S.C. § 1105a(a)(1). The notice of appeal was timely filed pursuant to IIRIRA § 309(c)(4)(C). 129 F. 3d 438 (8th Cir. 1997). of Petitioner before the immigration judge but are not the subject of this appeal. That the case of Petitioner's husband was severed from that of Petitioner. His application for suspension of deportation was granted. That the other daughter is a permanent resident and will be eligible to apply for United States citizenship on September 4.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="652"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/03/01/022368P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Geronima Mayo appeals a decision from the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) finding that she is not eligible for admission into the United States. The BIA reversed an immigration judge's ruling that found Mayo did not materially misrepresent herself and was thus eligible to enter the country. I. Geronima Mayo is a native of the Philippines. The Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) deferred her entry because an INS agent found pictures suggesting that she was married. Her case was transferred to Minnesota. Mayo was without counsel and had difficulty speaking English. She claimed for the first time on appeal that the marriage was void because her marriage ceremony took place before her marriage license was issued. We held that the district court was without authority to affirm the BIA for different reasons than the BIA used. We found her initial hearing before Judge Vinikoor deficient because Mayo did not have an attorney or a translator. Testimony was taken by telephone and in person through the latter part of 1991 and parts of 1992.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="650"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/8EF4161A82250BFF88256EF40081CB1C/$file/0272302.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Because we find that the BIA's asylum decision was not based on substantial evidence. I. Background Ranjeet Kaur is a Sikh and a native and citizen of India. She entered the United States illegally in July 1996 and was placed in removal proceedings the following year. She testified before the IJ that in 1995 she was imprisoned. The IJ denied Kaur's application for asylum and withholding of removal because he found that her testimony was not credible. That even if Kaur were found to be credible. The weaknesses in her testimony were such that the testimony was insufficient to carry her burden of proof without corroborating evidence. Kaur was in the kitchen. We are going to kill all of your family.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="650"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/99/11/983843P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
After the Immigration and Naturalization Service (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="650"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0117p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Ali's petition is DENIED. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Ali is a native and citizen of Bangladesh who entered the United States in 1991 without inspection by the Immigration and Naturalization Service. Ali concedes that he is deportable. His primary claim is that he is entitled to asylum and withholding of deportation because he was. Fears he will be. The crux of Ali's testimony was that during the period from 1987 to 1990. He was persecuted by Bangladesh police because of his involvement with the The Hon orable H erman J. These conflicts occurred during public meetings for his party and were the result of members of opposing parties showing up at the meetings and causing trouble. He claimed that he was arrested because an opposing party was in power and he was unfairly blamed. Ali claims that some time after his release from prison another warrant was issued for his arrest. That warrant was based upon false accusations by an opposing party. One document was a sworn statement from Sumner requesting the withdrawal of the I 130 application that she had filed on Ali's behalf.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="650"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0140p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The petitioner's surname is spelled
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="648"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/034457np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
2003.1 We will deny the petition. The Immigration and Naturalization Service (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="648"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0157p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Are citizens of the People's Republic of China who sought refuge in this country after Chen was allegedly forced to undergo a sterilization procedure following the birth of the couple's second child. Contending that they are not supported by substantial evidence. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Chen and Lin were married in 1985 and lived in rural Fujian Province with their son. Who was born on February 9. Chen was visited in January 1990 by five members of a local
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="648"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0145p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Amare will be subjected to
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="648"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/35F164B4290E14D588256EEB00782A8E/$file/0273473.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We conclude that because the legal issue presented was not squarely controlled by existing BIA or federal court precedent. He was taken into custody by the Immigration and Naturalization Service (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="648"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/885A1BE6E33F881D8825722D007DC5C3/$file/0470745.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We hold that the government has introduced sufficient evidence to carry its burden of proof that Sinotes Cruz is removable. He was granted lawful temporary resident status in May 1988. He was granted lawful permanent resident status in June 1990. Imposition of sentence was
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="648"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/9B901E86DA2D78ED88256D550069DA1E/$file/0270430.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: Petitioner Francilia Padilla attempted to enter the United States using fraudulent documents and was removed pursuant to an expedited procedure that does not afford a hearing. Arguing that the prior order was reinstated in violation of her right to due process. Immigration officials suspected that her papers were forged and detained her for questioning. Petitioner admitted that the immigration forms were not hers and that she had substituted her photo for that of the rightful owner. Which provides: If an immigration officer determines that an alien . . . who is arriving in the United States . . . is inadmissible under section 1182(a)(6)(C) [deeming inadmissible aliens who attempt entry through fraud or misrepresentation] . . . of this title. The Act amended 8 U.S.C. § 1255(i) to provide for adjustment of status for aliens who were physically present in the United States. The INS agent discovered that Petitioner was subject to an order of removal. The prior order of removal is reinstated from its original date and is not subject to being reopened or reviewed.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="648"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=96-1194.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
American Civil Liberties Union were on brief for petitioner. Were on brief for respondent. Enacted after this petition was filed. It is unconstitutional. Which was signed into law on April 24. Prohibits judicial review of deportation orders issued against aliens who have committed certain types of crimes. Kolster seeks review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) decision that he is ineligible. Which were pending on the date of AEDPA's enactment. Kolster was indicted in federal court in Massachusetts for conspiracy to possess cocaine with intent to distribute. He later pled guilty and was sentenced to twenty four months' imprisonment. While Kolster was incarcerated. The INS charged that Kolster was deportable pursuant to section 241(a)(2)(B)(i) of the INA. The Immigration Judge found that Kolster did not have statutory eligibility for section 212(c) relief. The Board agreed with the decision to pretermit Kolster's application for a section 212(c) waiver because Kolster had
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="648"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/02/02-1347.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The INS ceased to exist as an independent agency within the Department of Justice and its functions were transferred to the newly formed Department of Homeland Security. Which is a component of the United States Department of Justice. Attorney General John Ashcroft is the head of the Department of Justice. The BIA's decision to deny asylum was supported by substantial evidence. The denial of the motion to reconsider was not an abuse of discretion because there was no due process violation in the delay in instituting removal proceedings against Dandan. The denial of the motion to reopen was not an abuse of discretion because Dandan did not present facts that noted any material change in country conditions in Lebanon. I. The Petitioners in this case are a family unit.1 Lead Petitioner Nabil Dandan is the husband and father of 1 The government contends that the two oldest children. Have
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="648"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0715n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Because the Immigration Judge's determination that the Petitioner was not credible was supported by substantial evidence. Facts The following facts were alleged by the Petitioner in his request for asylum. Petitioner Nather Habeb Shaba Tawfek Al Shabee is a citizen and national of Iraq. AlShabee and his family are Chaldean Christians. Which are ethnic and religious minorities in Iraq. His father and all of his uncles were members in the Assyrian Democratic Movement (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="648"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/07/00-9516.htm">00-9516 -- DOLDEMESKEL V. IMMMIGARATION & NATURALIZATION SERVICE -- 07/25/2001<BR></A><BR>
Is a native and citizen of Ethiopia. Woldemeskel claimed that she was the victim of past persecution under the Mengistu regime and that she feared future persecution under the Transitional Government of Ethiopia (TGE). Woldemeskel for twelve months because she was believed to be a member of a political opposition group called the Ethiopian People's Revolutionary Party (EPRP). She was threatened often with a gun and tortured by prison authorities who gagged her. Woldemeskel does not claim to have suffered further persecution. Asserting that she and her husband were fired as a result of their Amhara heritage. She and her husband were members of a political opposition group called the All Amhara People's Organization (AAPO). He was allegedly arrested by the TGE in 1992. Because she was unable to obtain visas for her children. Although persecution is not explicitly defined. We have observed that it requires the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="648"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAyLTQ5OTIgQW1lbmRlZC5wZGY=/02-4992%20Amended.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The purpose of the motion to reopen was to adjust their status to that of lawful permanent residents on the basis of approved
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="646"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0205p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Garcia Echaverria argues that his conviction for unlawful reentry should be vacated because (1) his initial removal was unlawful. Because at the time he was removed. The Kentucky drug conviction for which he was removed was on direct appeal. (2) his initial removal violated due process because at the time he was removed. His petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="646"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=93-1722.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Was on brief for appellee. Defendant appellant Tyrone Smith was indicted in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts for unlawful reentry into the United States following deportation. Collaterally attacking the deportation order upon which the indictment was based. Smith was convicted for unlawful possession of a firearm and trafficking in cocaine. Smith was arrested and served with the order to show cause. Smith appeared before the immigration court and informed the immigration judge that he was represented by Paul Carrigan. That the judge was going forward with the deportation hearing with Smith representing himself. A waiver was not available to Smith. That his wife was mentally ill. Before any action was taken with respect to Smith's appeal. I hereby withdraw any pending appeals he may have regarding the above referenced deportation matter.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="646"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=91-1867.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The facts in this case are not disputed. He was convicted in a Massachusetts district court of assault and battery by means of a dangerous weapon (a baseball bat). The Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) issued an order to show cause why he should not be deported under 8 U.S.C. 1251(a)(4) (conviction based on a crime involving moral turpitude committed within five years of entry and for which a sentence of one year or more is imposed). Five hearings were held between April and December 1987. Counsel again was not present. The final hearing on December 17 was scheduled to commence at 9:00 a.m. He stated: This matter was set over to this morning at nine in the morning for a hearing on an application for 212(c) waiver. Nor is the Respondent or his attorney present in court at this time. It is now nine nineteen in the morning. The Respondent is not present to make or establish eligibility for the relief which he indicated he would be pursuing. It will be the Order of the Court that the Respondent be deported from the United States to Trinidad on the basis of the charge obtained in the Order to Show Cause.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="646"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=05-2570_017.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Was detained at Fort Lauderdale International Airport when he tried to enter this country with an illegitimate Italian passport. Ferdinant recalls several instances in which family members were singled out and harassed based on an affiliation with the Democratic Party or their relationship to Sabri Mema. Ferdinant described an incident in 1998 when his identical twin brother Spartak was stopped by police officers on his way to a Democratic Party meeting. Sabri was detained. Was scheduled to testify. He was detained. Although she was released on that day. She was arrested and taken to the prosecutor's office where officials again ordered her to sign the papers. She was attacked. While the family was away. It was not long before police arrested him again after speaking at a rally. When Ferdinant insisted that he was not Spartak the officers beat him. The family received word that the police were looking for Ferdinant. When he was approached by several officers who had a warrant for Ferdinant's arrest. Moved to yet another small town until Ferdinant was able to secure passage out of Albania on May 25.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="646"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/05/99-9512a.htm">99-9512 -- ESCALERA V. IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE -- 05/25/2000<BR></A><BR>
<strong><a href=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="646"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/FE2EF21DFFB8B02888256E3E0061EB6E/$file/0272311.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Petitioners argue that (1) the IJ's determination that they did not suffer past persecution is not supported by substantial evidence in the record. Because Petitioners were placed in deportation proceedings before April 1. This case is governed by the transitional rules of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="646"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/C9A2B3A02814FA90882571D10053541D/$file/0472798.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Ornelas Chavez claims (1) the BIA erroneously required that he must have reported third party persecution to government authorities to qualify for withholding of removal under section 1231(b)(3). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a). Provides that a signatory nation will not
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="646"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/0E65B93FADA9B1B388256D160073EA72/$file/0156266.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: Plaintiff Appellants are seven
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="646"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/16D57BC0A3B80F5688256D13006C7717/$file/0270227.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Juan Monjaraz Munoz (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="646"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/19403EA531688A4988256D7C0058C7F9/$file/0270227.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is hereby amended. Is deleted and replaced with the following text: The petition for review is GRANTED. Respondent's petition for rehearing is DENIED. Juan Monjaraz Munoz (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="646"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/002156.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: Rafael Medina was arrested by agents of the Immigration and Naturalization Service (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="644"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0086p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This appeal presents the case of a Pakistani family (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="644"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0108n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
I. Samir Yonan Khora (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="644"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/July2004/031255pa.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This appeal centers on the question w h ether the I m m i g r a ti o n a nd Naturalization Service (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="644"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200416613OP2.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Petitioners are living in the United States on expired visas. Separate 2 removal proceedings were initiated against all three in March and April. The government contends that this Court is without jurisdiction to hear this case pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii). We hold that we have jurisdiction under this statute to review the denials of motions to continue removal proceedings. There was nonetheless no abuse of discretion in the IJs' decisions to do so. Nizar Ghulamani are natives and citizens of Pakistan. The facts and procedural histories of their individualized cases are set forth below.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="644"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/C07060353F4385FF88256C1000663F7C/$file/0170599.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: Normita Santo Domingo Fajardo is a native of the Philippines. Her application was denied on September 29. The order was sent to Fajardo at 909 S. Was the residence of Serra. The proceedings were held in absentia and Fajardo was ordered deported. The motion to reopen was denied because the Immigration Judge (IJ) believed Fajardo's nonappearance was the result of her failure to notify the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) and the INS of a change in her address. Levin is not a lawyer. Levin lives and works in Las Vegas and told Fajardo he knew an INS attorney there who could have her case transferred there. Fajardo was instructed to report for deportation. An in absentia deportation order may be rescinded if the motion to reopen is filed within 180 days of the order and the petitioner can show her failure to appear was due to
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="644"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0726n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Son Mendrit are all citizens and natives of Albania. The Vushajs appeal the Board's decision that their applications were frivolous and denying their motion to reopen the hearing. 1997.1 They were authorized by the Immigration and Naturalization Service (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="644"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/A11F166C918D0B4488256A1C005CF99C/$file/9970440.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is HIV positive and a homosexual. We have jurisdiction over Hernaez's case. Was in A Second Chance. A drug 1 It is unclear why Petitioner wrote this statement eight days after his initial inquiry. He claims he was
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="644"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/EB78FACED3E3FDE888256EE600552454/$file/0270662.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The opinion published at 356 F.3d 1027 (9th Cir. 2004) is amended as follows: 1. Lines 5 12 of Section III.A.2: Delete We have held that such a due process challenge requires two showings. The petitioner must allege facts to allow the court
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="644"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=00-1971.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Were on brief. It did so by requiring Manzoor to establish that his well founded fear of future persecution was country wide after he had shown that he was persecuted in a particular region. Manzoor is a 24 year old native of Karachi. He is an ethnic Mohajir. A group defined as the native Urdu speaking descendants of those who immigrated to Pakistan when India was partitioned in 1947 48. </FONT></P> <P><FONT FACE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="644"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-1706.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Were on brief. We affirm. <P><CENTER><STRONG>I.</STRONG> <STRONG><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="644"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0744n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Son Mendrit are all citizens and natives of Albania. The Vushajs appeal the Board's decision that their applications were frivolous The Honorable Algenon L. 1997.1 They were authorized by the Immigration and Naturalization Service (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="644"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/June2004/031255p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This appeal centers on the question w h ether the I m m i g r a ti o n a nd Naturalization Service (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="644"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=93-1043.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Wall with whom Victoria Lewis and Greater Boston Legal Services were on brief for petitioner. Were on brief for respondent. We conclude that the error was harmless and affirm. In 1982 she was arrested and charged with five separate drug and three separate firearm offenses.1 She was tried. The remaining drug charge and the three firearm charges were placed
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="644"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/BBD5C7B6722CF9A188256E5A00707ABA/$file/9970440.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is HIV positive and a homosexual. We have jurisdiction over Hernaez's case. Was in A Second Chance. A drug 1 It is unclear why Petitioner wrote this statement eight days after his initial inquiry. He claims he was
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="644"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/August2003/012316p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The pre IIRIRA INA governs deportation proceedings that were in progress as of April 1. Former Section 241(a)(1)(B) applies to aliens who entered the United States without inspection and former Section 241(a)(2)(B)(i) to aliens who have been convicted of a controlled substance offense. 3 promulgated under the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="642"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0881n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This is an appeal from the Board of Immigration Appeals' (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="642"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/002371.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Because the Immigration and Naturalization Service (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="642"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/031086np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Luis Gutierrez Castro (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="642"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/May2003/021897p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The only claim over which we retain jurisdiction is her allegation that the INS illegally removed her from the United States before the end of the 30 day period during which she could appeal the INS's denial of her motion to reopen. Facts and Procedural History Bejar was admitted lawfully to the United States in 1979 as a permanent resident. She was convicted of receiving stolen property in violation of New Jersey criminal law. Was convicted of. Bejar was sentenced to 364 days in the Passaic County jail. She was arrested again for one count of third degree theft and received another 364 day jail term. The INS determined that she was not entitled to admission and placed her in removal proceedings. Bejar's administrative case was continued six times. 3 that she derived United States citizenship from her parents because they became naturalized when she was 17 years old. This conclusion was based on her representation that she was born on May 1. Her true birthday is May 1. The evidence in the record strongly corroborates this prior date and the resulting implication that she was in fact 18 rather than 17 when her parents became U.S. citizens.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="642"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/031766p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The petitioner's attorney informed us that the petitioner's proper surname is
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="642"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/01/97-9527.htm">97-9527 -- RAHMAN V. IMMIGRATION & NATURALIZATION SERVICE -- 01/07/1998<BR></A><BR>
We affirm. <p> <center><strong>I.</center> </strong> <p> The Rahmans are husband and wife and both are natives and citizens of Bangladesh. Mahbubur became involved in the student wing of the Jatiyo Party while he was a student at Titumir College in Dhaka. The Jatiyo Party was the ruling party until 1991 when it lost control to the Bangladesh National Party (National Party). He was attacked by five or six members of the National Party. He was again attacked in September 1992 with sticks and knives. He was hospitalized for ten days following the second attack. Was prescribed fifteen days' of complete bed rest upon his release. His request was denied on March 10. He will be killed or put in jail. Of which he claims he is innocent. <p> Sonia's mother. Was vice president of the Jatiyo women's organization. 1995. <p> A deportation hearing was conducted on April 17. Both cases were heard on January 4. The Rahmans' applications for withholding of deportation and asylum were denied. The denial was affirmed by the BIA on May 14.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="642"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/17051AA042C0E4D388257138005E14E5/$file/0370165.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Even if they themselves have a well founded fear of persecution should they return. An Immigration Judge (IJ) held that Miranda was barred from relief because he had
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="642"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/19D2F4EB1123D97388256ED9006806FC/$file/9971524.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The cases were consolidated for consideration.2 We have jurisdiction pursuant to former 8 U.S.C. § 1105a. BACKGROUND Siong and his wife are natives of Laos. Their children are natives and citizens The claims of Siong's wife and children are derivative of his claim. We will refer to Mr. Siong was trained by the Central Intelligence Agency (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="642"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/001755.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We hold that § 241(a)(5) does not have a retroactive effect on Velasquez Gabriel and thus affirm reinstatement of the prior order deporting him. He was finally removed from the United States on October 19. The prior order of removal is reinstated from its original date and is not subject to being reopened or reviewed. The alien is not eligible and may not apply for any relief under this chapter. Finding Velasquez Gabriel did not have a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="642"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/052913p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Mudric alleges his Fifth Amendment right to procedural due process was violated by undue Immigration and Naturalization Service The Honorable Monroe G. Mudric also argues that the Government should be estopped from removing him because he was prevented from obtaining lawful status as a result of the Government's own undue delay. We will deny the petition. Was already residing in the United States at that time. Mudric Meolic is a naturalized U.S. citizen. 3 2 1 1993 and approximately four years later. Hearings before an Immigration Judge on the subject of Mudric's deportation were held in August of 1997 and February of 1998.3 At the February 1998 hearing. Mudric described one incident in which he was hit in the head with a gun by an officer. Mudric was allegedly told by friends that he was a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="642"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/9D0A1BD169C6A0C488256E68007D642C/$file/0370421.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Nakamoto obtained an immediate relative status visa on the basis of her marriage to Del Rosario and was admitted to the United States on March 27. This case raises a preliminary question of whether we have jurisdiction to review the BIA's decision. We conclude that because the determination under § 1227(a)(1)(G)(ii) is not committed entirely to the Attorney General's discretion. We have jurisdiction to review the BIA's decision in this case. We further conclude that the BIA's decision was supported by substantial evidence and therefore deny Nakamoto's petition for review. ASHCROFT was twenty two when she began corresponding with her future husband. Were married in June 1997. The IJ determined that the INS had met its initial burden of proof and that the Hawaii family court's annulment order and the letters submitted as evidence
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="642"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/September2004/031766p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The petitioner's attorney informed us that the petitioner's proper surname is
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="642"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0258p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The BIA affirmed the IJ's finding that Vasha was incredible and that he had failed to demonstrate a well founded fear of future persecution. Vasha argues that (1) the BIA's opinion upholding the IJ's decision was not supported by the evidence. (2) his due process rights were violated by the manner in which the IJ conducted the removal hearing. We conclude that the decision to deny Vasha's asylum claim was supported by substantial evidence and that the BIA did not err in designating this case for review by a single BIA member. Vasha's petition for review is DENIED. I. BACKGROUND Vasha is a thirty three year old native and citizen of Albania. He was born and raised in Mamurras. Which is located in the northern part of the country. The family members who remained in Albania were branded as traitors and forced to live in an internment camp. Which was elected in 1997 and which he claims is comprised of the same people who were in power in the communist government. During which he was interrogated and tortured.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="639"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/dec96/95-1373.wpd.html">NAZARAGHAIE V. INS<BR></A><BR>
He was identified by revolutionary guards as a member of SAVAK. Appellant claims he was then imprisoned after refusing to sign a statement declaring his hatred for the Shah's regime. Appellant claims further that he was beaten severely before his detention. Appellant was released with a large number of other SAVAK employees. Was refused several times. He was obliged to bribe officials to stay in business. He was no longer able to persuade officials to accept such bribes. He was then arrested and imprisoned. He was detained on arrival in the United States. Have twice sought him at his home in Iran. Obtaining asylum is a two stage process. The alien must establish he is a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="639"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0049n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Are citizens and natives of Albania.1 The adult petitioners. Came to the United States approximately nine months apart and were placed in removal proceedings separately. The family had a shared evidentiary hearing at which they were represented by the same attorney. The board issued separate decisions affirming the Edison and Manjola Gishta are married and are the parents of Enea Gishta. Who was sixteen months old when he entered the United States. 1 1 decisions of the immigration judge. I. Edison Gishta was admitted to the United States on March 30. Her initial stated reason for coming to the United States was
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="639"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Jan2004/023967u.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We will deny the petition. Is a native and citizen of the People's Republic of China who arrived in the United States with fraudulent immigration documents on or about June 1. The Notice to Appear charged Zhu with inadmissibility because he did not have a valid unexpired immigrant visa or other valid entry document. Its interior enforcement functions were transferred to the Department of Homeland Security. Zhu stated under penalty of perjury that in 1989 he was a student at Fuzhou Normal College. He was angry and went to the office of the population control authorities to complain. A struggle ensued and he was arrested and locked in an office. His wife was fitted with an intrauterine device. His wife did not want to have the procedure and went to a relative's house to hide. Three days after his wife was scheduled for the operation. Population control officials came to his house when he was not home. Who was a surgeon at the hospital. Zhu's mother told Zhu and his wife what was done. They were relieved.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="639"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/05/99-9512.htm">99-9512 -- ESCALERA V. IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE -- 05/25/2000<BR></A><BR>
Senior District Judge. <p> <hr align=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="639"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/417BA16F385FFF6E88256F85005AB4E9/$file/0372084.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We have jurisdiction over his petition pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. I. Hernandez is married to a United States citizen and has been a conditional permanent resident since November 17. Hernandez and his wife were driving back to their home in Sunnyside. They were stopped by INS Agents Jackson and Sanford. Who were conducting anti smuggling
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="639"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0057n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This appeal presents the case of a Pakistani family (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="639"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/4BA5D8497E773B7688257138005E2E8F/$file/0371737.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Dissent by Judge Kozinski *Alberto Gonzales is substituted for his predecessor. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. BACKGROUND1 1 Our recitation of the facts is derived largely from Canales Vargas's testimony. We must assume that the applicant's factual contentions are true.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="639"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/981597.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Which was based on the BIA's finding that Stewart failed to demonstrate
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="639"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/09A3BAD6F27F9956882571F4005653F7/$file/0373030.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Was on the briefs for the petitioner. Were on the briefs for the respondent. We are without jurisdiction to consider either of these issues as Petitioner did not 1 11920 GRANADOS OSEGUERA v. We grant Granados Oseguera's petition as to the BIA's denial of his motion to reopen proceedings and as to his ineffective assistance of counsel (IAC) claim the two are related. In the limited situation where an alien is represented by the same allegedly incompetent counsel throughout agency proceedings including through the filing of his motion to reopen proceedings before the BIA and therefore cannot administratively exhaust2 a claim for ineffective assistance of counsel. We have jurisdiction to review the denial of the motion to reopen. We will review to determine whether the denial of effective counsel rises to the level of a due process violation and was prejudicial. Counsel knew or should have known that Petitioner would be barred from relief if he failed timely to file the petition or motion. 1258 (9th Cir. 1996) (holding that we do not have jurisdiction to consider the underlying final order upon petition for review of a motion to reopen where the petitioner did not earlier seek review of that underlying final order).
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="639"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=02-2291.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
LLP</SPAN> were on brief for petitioner.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="639"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/972358.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. We hold that we have jurisdiction to review Okpa's retroactivity claim. Who was affiliated with the Liberian embassy. This status may be granted to an alien who is a national of a designated country that is experiencing an ongoing armed conflict. Liberia was in the middle of a civil war. Okpa (following Addo's advice) filed a TPS application falsely stating that he was a citizen of Liberia. Addo in turn was to submit to the INS documentation from the Liberian embassy showing that Okpa was Liberian. Okpa initially stated that he was Liberian. Okpa recanted and admitted that he was from Nigeria. Was inadmissible for permanent residence because he had submitted a fraudulent TPS application. Section 212(i) allows for a waiver when the alien is inadmissible because he has filed a fraudulent document with the INS. § 212(i) permitted the Attorney General to grant a waiver
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="639"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/6C259C50C9868E5888256D96006FB166/$file/0270526.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
He contends that he was denied a full and fair hearing because of the IJ's bias. Maria and Alejandro also are Mexican citizens and are without status. Requested relief alleging that he is eligible for suspension of deportation. Reyes Melendez is a registered nursing assistant who cares for seriously ill and disabled individuals. His patients and their family members were grateful for his care. Reyes Melendez was arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol. His license was suspended. He was arrested on two occasions for driving with a suspended license. Reyes Melendez attested that he was driving to travel to his two jobs. Reyes Melendez was arrested again for driv 12908 REYES MELENDEZ v. He alleges that he is in counseling to prevent life's pressures from leading to another relapse. Reyes Melendez alleged that he and his United States citizen children would experience extreme hardship if he were deported. His license in California is not recognized in Mexico and he does not have savings to attend school for a comparable certificate in Mexico.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="637"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/02/02/011430P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
United States District Judge for the District of South Dakota. (1996).1 Section 241(a)(5) was enacted to expedite the removal of aliens who illegally reenter this country after being deported. The issue before us is whether § 241(a)(5) may be applied to aliens such as Alvarez Portillo who illegally reentered before the statute's enactment. He was deported to Mexico on December 8. While most of us have access only to the codified version of those statutes. Our opinion will yield to this reality by referring to the statutes at issue by their INA and IIRIRA section numbers. We reject this argument without discussion as it is without merit. It is essential to define the precise impact of the new statute. This strong language was tempered by the statute's limited scope. Section 242(f) applied only to aliens who were initially deported for enumerated reasons (such as criminal offenses). It did not apply to aliens such as Alvarez Portillo who were deported for entering the country without inspection. Aliens in this category who illegally reentered were entitled to a new deportation proceeding before again being deported.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="637"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/1998F0C54D1522E488256E5A00707D5F/$file/0070429.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Denied Popova's petition because she failed to establish that this treatment was
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="637"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/03a0316p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
I. BACKGROUND Suassuna was born on January 27. He was authorized to remain until May of 1987. Authorizing him to remain as long as he was in school. Suassuna and Kadoura have a son named Hamza Suassuna. Who was born in Ypsilanti. Shortly after Hamza was born. Suassuna and Kadoura were divorced The Hono rable Herman J. Suassuna appeared with counsel and admitted that he was deportable as charged. An alien was eligible for suspension of deportation if he could show (1) that he had been continually physically present in the United States for seven years preceding his application for relief. This relief was not available if the alien had failed to comply with a prior grant of voluntary departure and was unable to show
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="637"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2003/07/02-9513.htm">02-9513 -- HERNANDEZ V. ASHCROFT -- 07/21/2003<BR></A><BR>
Was ordered removed from the United States in 1998 after he falsely claimed United States citizenship at the U.S.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="637"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/BE7C1893B2CCA10088256B12005F87C1/$file/0070429.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Denied Popova's petition because she failed to establish that this treatment was
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="637"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/3200203F0C7FC3AF88256FCB007A8815/$file/0273556.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Gonzales is substituted for his predecessor. GONZALES 3469 1632.1 We conclude that Minasyan is a derivative citizen of the United States pursuant to that provision. Is thus not subject to removal as a felon convicted of an aggravated offense. First entered the United States with his family when he was eight. He obtained lawful permanent resident status when he was ten. When he was fourteen. Minasyan was arrested on charges of first degree burglary and Under former INA § 321(a). Or (2) The naturalization of the surviving parent if one of the parents is deceased. Or (3) The naturalization of the parent having legal custody of the child when there has been a legal separation of the parents or the naturalization of the mother if the child was born out of wedlock and the paternity of the child has not been established by legitimation. If (4) Such naturalization takes place while such child is unmarried and under the age of eighteen years. (5) Such child is residing in the United States pursuant to a lawful admission for permanent residence at the time of the naturalization of the parent last naturalized under clause (1) of this subsection.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="635"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-1120.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
P.C.</SPAN> were on brief. Were on brief. Ahlijah is a native and citizen of Ghana and a member of the Ewe tribe. Members of which are located in both Ghana and its neighbor to the east. Ahlijah testified that he was raised by his uncle and lived in Akra. There was a coup in Ghana. Who was affiliated with the government. Was arrested and imprisoned. Who is a native and citizen of Togo and also a member of the Ewe tribe.</P> <P> In 1987. Ahlijah testified that he did not know that the information he provided was for a coup. He was among a crowd of people who threw stones at soldiers and burned cars. He was arrested by the Togolose authorities and imprisoned for twenty days. Ahlijah that he should leave Togo because the government was looking for him. He testified that he fears he will be arrested or killed by the Togolose government if he returns to Togo. Even though his uncle has been released from prison and
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="635"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/28CAF0AD88B5A3D088256CF400747AC2/$file/0170622.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: Jose Cedano Viera is a native and citizen of Mexico who 4362 CEDANO VIERA v. He was later convicted of Lewdness with a Child Under Fourteen Years of Age in violation of Nevada law. Charging that Cedano Viera's conviction was an
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="635"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/B0C4124B96A22A7388256E76007A5804/$file/0272349.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Our review is of the IJ's decision. The Application and Testimony Tawadrus is a fifty four year old native and citizen of Egypt. ASHCROFT 4965 and his family are members of the Coptic Christian Church. The heart of Tawadrus' asylum claim is that members of certain government controlled agencies placed economic sanctions on him for failing to convert to Islam. Tawadrus was left with
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="635"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=99-2049.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Graves</U> was on brief for petitioner.</FONT> <P><FONT FACE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="635"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/92707AE5028D0EE888256C060080A2E3/$file/0056149.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Gutierrez was admitted to the United States as a legal permanent resident in 1979 at the age of thirteen. He injured his back on the job and had to have an operation. Because he was unable to work. He was eventually caught by the police and pled guilty to possession of cocaine for sale in November of 1991. He was released on parole in 1993 after serving only approximately 2 years of his sentence. Contending that he was removable under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii) (aggravated felony) based on his California conviction for the sale of cocaine. Gutierrez conceded that he was removable on the basis of his drug conviction. The IJ also noted that Gutierrez's deportation to Colombia would not cause great hardship because all his family members were from Colombia and were still primarily Spanish speakers. Gutierrez claimed that (1) the IJ had incorrectly balanced the equities in his case in denying a Section 212(c) was later amended by § 440(d) of the Anti Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="635"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/04/04-1761.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
It is well established that this court has jurisdiction to grant such stays. Although it is clear that the courts of appeals have no jurisdiction over the original decision of the immigration authorities to grant or deny the privilege of voluntary departure. This court has never had occasion to decide expressly whether we have the authority to grant such a stay. Observing that his voluntary departure period was set to expire three days after he filed his motion. I Voluntary departure is an alternative to removal (as deportation is now called) that the immigration service may grant in its discretion. An alien who has been granted this privilege is entitled to leave the country at her own expense within a certain period of time (usually up to 60 days). 8 U.S.C. § 1229c(a). Voluntary departure is desirable because it allows them to choose their own destination points. Are some serious detriments to a voluntary departure. To the risk that she will suffer the very persecution at issue in the proceeding (which obviously can include imprisonment or death) before the appeal can be completed.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="635"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19975283.OPN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Lettman was convicted of a third degree murder in this country. 2 In 1996. We must decide if we have jurisdiction to determine our jurisdiction. If we have jurisdiction to decide jurisdiction. We can decide whether Lettman is a deportable alien. If Lettman is a deportable alien. If he is not deportable. 160 61 (10th Cir. 1997) (explaining effective date of IIRIRA's transitional rules). 6 Because Lettman was in deportation proceedings beginning in 1996. Lettman is covered by the IIRIRA's transitional rules because the BIA issued a final order of deportation on 7 July 1997. Provides: [T]here shall be no appeal permitted in the case of an alien who is inadmissible or deportable by reason of having committed [an aggravated felony]. 7 Lettman was convicted of murder: an aggravated felony according to INA § 101(a)(43)(A). We must decide whether Section 309(c)(4)(G) prevents appeal (thereby depriving us of jurisdiction) when the BIA decides an alien is deportable or whether we have jurisdiction to decide if an alien is deportable.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="633"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/E61721A7D4B6EFF388256DFF00009739/$file/0272176.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1105a(a). Wang alleges that during the summer of 1989 he was employed by the Hang Cheng Machine Electrical Equipment Co. Upon learning that government authorities were using force to quell the Student Democratic Movement in Beijing. He must meet an even higher burden of proof:
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="633"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/83DD75F5841659F188256ED7004B7170/$file/0215113.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Was disbarred from the practice of law before the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 46(b)(1)(A). 2004 order and opinion is amended as follows: The two paragraphs on slip op. 4046 47 that read: 9592 GADDA v. Respondent shall file notices of withdrawal in all cases pending in this court in which he is counsel of record. R. 46 2(g). are deleted. Respondent Gadda shall file notices of withdrawal in all cases pending in this court in which he is listed as counsel of record as of June 1. Gadda's motion is denied. Failure to comply with this order within the time permitted will result in the imposition of monetary sanctions of not less than $1. The other proceeding is a disciplinary action initiated by this court after we received notice of Gadda's suspension from practice by the State Bar Court. Gadda argues that any reciprocal discipline imposed by the BIA or by this court based on the State Bar Court's suspension order is invalid because the Supreme Court of California GADDA v.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="633"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/67BAF059603C0D8188256D6A00811A4F/$file/0056149.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is amended as follows: 298 F.3d 824. The petition for rehearing is DENIED. I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Gutierrez was admitted to the United States as a legal permanent resident in 1979 at the age of thirteen. He injured his back on the job and had to have an operation. Because he was unable to work. He was eventually caught by the police and pled guilty to possession of cocaine for sale in November of 1991. He was released on parole in 1993 after serving only approximately 2 years of his sentence. Contending that he was removable under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii) (aggravated felony) based on his California conviction for the sale of cocaine. Gutierrez conceded that he was removable on the basis of his drug conviction. The IJ also noted that Gutierrez's deportation to Colombia would not cause great hardship because all his family members were from Colombia and were still primarily Spanish speakers. (2) the translation of his testimony before the IJ was inadequate and deprived him of due process of law.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="633"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/0480A674EFC38BCA8825718000722818/$file/0370165.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is hereby amended as follows: 1) Footnote 6. Is replaced in its entirety with the following: The government has invoked only the Chevron deference doctrine. 544 (2d Cir. 2005) (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="633"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199802/96-1310a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Were on the briefs. Were on the brief. It explains that appli cation of section 440(a) to LaFontant's petition is not imper missibly retroactive but is instead a permissible prospective application of a jurisdictional statute. We hold that section 440(a) of the AEDPA is not impermissibly retroactive as applied in this case.1 We therefore dismiss this case for lack 1 We do not pass on whether section 440(a) may apply. To bar review of a final order of deportation in a case in which a constitutional infirmity in the deportation proceed ing itself is alleged. I. Factual and Procedural Background Jean Fritzner LaFontant was born in Haiti on October 23. A copy of LaFontant's
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="631"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/03/97-9512.htm">97-9512 -- SIBANDA V. IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE -- 03/14/2002<BR></A><BR>
Brief 1 3. <p> Petitioners are natives and citizens of Zimbabwe. The INS issued an order to show cause and notice of hearing which was served on Petitioners' counsel on March . We have jurisdiction to review the Board's decision pursuant to Section 309(c)(4) of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="631"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/06/04/052207P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Castillo was convicted of child abuse in Maryland. An order was entered granting the motion. The responsibilities for providing immigration related services and benefits were transferred to the CIS. We will continue to refer to the CIS as the INS throughout this opinion. 22 application. No interview was scheduled. The INS notified Castillo that his interview was scheduled for August 25. The August 25 interview date was continued. No new date was scheduled. Because INA § 212(a)(2)(A)(i)(I) provides that aliens convicted of crimes involving moral turpitude are ineligible to receive visas and ineligible to be admitted to the United States. The grant of such a waiver is within the Attorney General's discretion. The application was originally filed on June 22. An interview notice was mailed on August 15. We are requesting a new interview date as soon as possible. Please contact me if you have any questions. The INS was given notice that Castillo's divorce was pending. A number of e mails were exchanged among INS officials suggesting that the INS should continue gathering additional information regarding the divorce proceeding before adjudicating Castillo's application.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="631"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=94-1385A.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
O'Sullivan & Friedman were on brief for petitioner. Iris Gomez with whom Massachusetts Law Reform Institute was on brief for Guatemaltecos Unidos En Accion of Rhode Island and Massachusetts Immigrant and Refugee Advocacy Coalition. Were on brief for respondent. Cordero's principal contention is that the Board. Ignored substantial portions of the evidence and accepted inappropriate assumptions about how Guatemalan society operates in concluding that his claim to have a well founded fear of persecution if returned to Guatemala contains fatal
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="631"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=91-1427.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Rhona Silverbush and Marc Bruner were on brief for petitioner. Were on brief for respondent. Petitioner argues that the Board erred in determining that he was ineligible to apply for relief from deportation pursuant to 212(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="631"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-9526.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The alien is required to sign a waiver of his right to contest removal other than through an application for <hr> asylum. 1187(b)(2). Ferry remained in the United States long after the ninety days he was authorized under the VWP had expired. Before a decision was rendered on Ferry's application for adjustment of status. Ferry remained in DHS custody for almost twenty three months before he was deported to Ireland on December 21. We affirm the district court's dismissal because Ferry's claims are moot. (1)
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="631"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=98-1484.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Were on brief. Were making inquiries. He then paid to have his bride smuggled into the country. We have carefully examined the hearing transcript and find no constitutional infirmity. The IJ appears to have used that discretion suitably and to have provided the petitioner with every opportunity to make his case. Role in keeping the focus of the inquiry sharp is to be commended. The IJ's cross examination was wholly consistent with the requirements of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act). This is not the stuff from which a due process violation can be fashioned. The short of it is that the IJ conducted the proceedings in this case in a balanced. No more is exigible: a party to an immigration case. Is entitled to a full and fair hearing not an idyllic one. An alien bears the burden of establishing that he is a refugee. The Act defines
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="631"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/B999B682E8E9ADE788256E2900705837/$file/0070157.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Congress made clear that individuals forced to undergo abortion or sterilization would be deemed to have been persecuted on account of political opinion. At issue here is the application of another category of asylum seekers covered by this statute: those persecuted for
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="631"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/981555.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Chief Judge: David Daada Gonahasa fled his homeland of Uganda after he was detained and threatened for his involvement in an opposition political party. I. David Daada Gonahasa is a citizen of Uganda. Gonahasa was responsible for recruiting members within the city of Kampala. He helped organize approximately five rallies for the party which were attended by fifty to one hundred participants. Some of the rallies were dispersed by riot police. They told him he was being arrested for his antigovernment campaign. He was stripped. He was then released and told to learn a lesson from his detainment. 2 After his release. That in any event country conditions had changed such that Gonahasa did not have a well founded fear of future persecution. Gonahasa seeks review of the Board's judgment that he is ineligible for political asylum. Section 208(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) delegates discretion to the Attorney General to grant asylum to any alien who is a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="629"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/8E7234C9523673F788256FC0007FB11C/$file/0273352.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Opinion by Judge Berzon *Alberto Gonzales is substituted for his predecessor. When the agency's only explanation of its final action is incoherent. I Petitioner Ernesto Adolfo Recinos de Leon (Recinos) is a Guatemalan national who fled that country and arrived in the United States in 1991. As the CAT claim was not administratively exhausted. 1079 n.5 (9th Cir. 2004) 2 The regulation was formerly codified at 8 C.F.R. § 3.1. As the two versions are materially identical. We refer to the version in place as the case comes to us. 3 The IJ's opinion is appended to this opinion. 4 The INS was abolished March 1. We will refer to the INS. As it was the agency involved in Recinos's removal proceedings. 1 RECINOS v. Another uncle was killed sometime thereafter. The IJ's opinion is
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="629"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/07/98-4191.htm">98-4191 -- NAGAHI V. IMMIGRATION & NATURALIZATION SERVICE -- 07/14/2000<BR></A><BR>
Was arrested on April 29. He was sentenced to six months imprisonment. The sentence was suspended and plaintiff was placed on probation. After probation was completed.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="629"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/A54AAF8C85FF189888256BB3008183D2/$file/9971306.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is amended as follows: 6815 At slip op. at 3346. To read:
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="629"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/2E22FEAFABD40ED388256E5A00707A88/$file/9870965.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
2000 and published at 219 F.3d 962 (9th Cir. 2000) is amended as follows: 1. Reversal should occur where the evidence is such that a reasonable factfinder would have to conclude that the requisite fear of persecution existed. Change the sentence beginning
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="629"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/DF1377E23A3CE65E88256A0D0060F3F1/$file/9870965.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
2000 and published at 219 F.3d 962 (9th Cir. 2000) is amended as follows: 1. Reversal should occur where the evidence is such that a reasonable factfinder would have to conclude that the requisite fear of persecution existed. Change the sentence beginning
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="629"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/unpub/02/02-60526.0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
PER CURIAM:1 In these four cases we are asked to review whether 1) the Board of Immigration Appeals erred in finding the Petitioner Hafiz ineligible for asylum. The Court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4. 2 1 constitutional rights were violated in the timing of the filing of these proceedings. Voluntary departure. wife and two sons.2 for asylum and The consolidated cases are those of Hafiz's The Immigration Judge denied the applications of removal but found Petitioners withholding eligible for voluntary departure. the request for asylum (not Petitioners appeal denial of of removal) and the withholding procedural due process issue (discussed in Part IV). Petitioner Hafiz's request for asylum was based on his alleged fear for his life if he returned to Bangladesh. Making the Immigration Judge's determination the If the primary applicant is granted asylum. We review factual findings of the Board of Immigration Appeals to determine whether they are supported by substantial evidence.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="629"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/sept95/94-9580.html">HASSAN V. INS<BR></A><BR>
The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. 1105a. I. Petitioner is a native and citizen of Bangladesh. The redesignation does not apply to deportation proceedings for which notice was provided to the alien before March 1. This amended judgment was presented to the IJ by the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) at a second deportation hearing. Also entered an
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="629"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19975283.MAN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Lettman was convicted of a third degree murder in this country. We must decide if we have jurisdiction to determine our jurisdiction. If we have jurisdiction to decide jurisdiction. We can decide whether Lettman is a deportable alien. If Lettman is a deportable alien. If he is not deportable. Because Lettman was in deportation proceedings beginning in 1996. Lettman is covered by the IIRIRA's transitional rules because the BIA issued a final order of deportation on 7 July 1997. Provides: [T]here shall be no appeal permitted in the case of an alien who is inadmissible or deportable by reason of having committed [an aggravated felony]. Lettman was convicted of murder: an aggravated felony according to INA § 101(a)(43)(A). We must decide whether Section 309(c)(4)(G) prevents appeal (thereby depriving us of jurisdiction) when the BIA decides an alien is deportable or whether we have jurisdiction to decide if an alien is deportable. If the BIA's determination is binding on us. If we can decide whether Lettman is deportable.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="629"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/C05D150E95A737A188257059004D5E52/$file/0415988.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Gonzales is substituted for his predecessor. Cordes could not have had settled expectations as to the continued availability of section 212(c) relief at the time she entered her guilty plea for non deportable offenses because the passage of section 440(d) of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="629"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/E8D7E9174FBB65B488256E68007C56C1/$file/0215113.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The other proceeding is a disciplinary action initiated by this court after we received notice of Gadda's suspension from practice by the State Bar Court. Gadda argues that any reciprocal discipline imposed by the BIA or by this court based on the State Bar Court's suspension order is invalid because the Supreme Court of California lacked jurisdiction to discipline him. I Gadda was admitted to the California State Bar in 1975. He was admitted to practice law and became a member of the bar of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. He was also admitted to practice before the GADDA v. ASHCROFT 4031 Board of Immigration Appeals (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="629"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/August2004/031338p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
It is the IJ's decision that we review. No mean task here because the IJ's opinion is cursory. We understand the IJ to have concluded that Berishaj's testimony regarding past persecution was not credible. Country conditions in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (which embraced Montenegro at the time of the IJ's decision) had changed such that Berishaj could no longer have a well founded fear of future persecution. That Berishaj's CAT claim failed because there was no objective evidence that a return to Montenegro would expose him to torture. The IJ misapplied the law in concluding that changed conditions in Montenegro have obviated any persecution claim that Berishaj might once have had. The burden of showing changed country conditions is on the government. We will therefore grant the petition for review of the decision insofar as it rejected Berishaj's asylum claim. We will deny the petition for review of the IJ's CAT decision. As we will explain in greater detail. In many cases in which country conditions are at issue.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="629"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/unpub/02/02-60527.0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
PER CURIAM:1 In these four cases we are asked to review whether 1) the Board of Immigration Appeals erred in finding the Petitioner Hafiz ineligible for asylum. The Court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4. 2 1 constitutional rights were violated in the timing of the filing of these proceedings. Voluntary departure. wife and two sons.2 for asylum and The consolidated cases are those of Hafiz's The Immigration Judge denied the applications of removal but found Petitioners withholding eligible for voluntary departure. the request for asylum (not Petitioners appeal denial of of removal) and the withholding procedural due process issue (discussed in Part IV). Petitioner Hafiz's request for asylum was based on his alleged fear for his life if he returned to Bangladesh. Making the Immigration Judge's determination the If the primary applicant is granted asylum. We review factual findings of the Board of Immigration Appeals to determine whether they are supported by substantial evidence.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="629"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/unpub/02/02-60528.0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
PER CURIAM:1 In these four cases we are asked to review whether 1) the Board of Immigration Appeals erred in finding the Petitioner Hafiz ineligible for asylum. The Court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4. 2 1 constitutional rights were violated in the timing of the filing of these proceedings. Voluntary departure. wife and two sons.2 for asylum and The consolidated cases are those of Hafiz's The Immigration Judge denied the applications of removal but found Petitioners withholding eligible for voluntary departure. the request for asylum (not Petitioners appeal denial of of removal) and the withholding procedural due process issue (discussed in Part IV). Petitioner Hafiz's request for asylum was based on his alleged fear for his life if he returned to Bangladesh. Making the Immigration Judge's determination the If the primary applicant is granted asylum. We review factual findings of the Board of Immigration Appeals to determine whether they are supported by substantial evidence.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="629"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/feb99/97-5283.ma2.html">LETTMAN V. RENO (2/26/1999, NO. 97-5283)<BR></A><BR>
Lettman was convicted of a third degree murder in this country. We must decide if we have jurisdiction to determine our jurisdiction. If we have jurisdiction to decide jurisdiction. We can decide whether Lettman is a deportable alien. If Lettman is a deportable alien. If he is not deportable. Because Lettman was in deportation proceedings beginning in 1996. Lettman is covered by the IIRIRA's transitional rules because the BIA issued a final order of deportation on 7 July 1997.</P> <P> Section 309(c)(4)(G) of the IIRIRA's transitional rules. Provides:</P> <P> [T]here shall be no appeal permitted in the case of an alien who is inadmissible or deportable by reason of having committed [an aggravated felony].</P> <P> Lettman was convicted of murder: an aggravated felony according to INA § 101(a)(43)(A). We must decide whether Section 309(c)(4)(G) prevents appeal (thereby depriving us of jurisdiction) when the BIA decides an alien is deportable or whether we have jurisdiction to decide if an alien is deportable.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="629"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/04/97-9572.htm">97-9572 -- PORTILLO V. IMMIGRATION & NATURALIZATION SERVICE -- 04/08/1999<BR></A><BR>
Two members of their literacy group were kidnapped. One of whom was murdered. They were
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="629"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/unpub/02/02-60529.0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
PER CURIAM:1 In these four cases we are asked to review whether 1) the Board of Immigration Appeals erred in finding the Petitioner Hafiz ineligible for asylum. The Court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4. 2 1 constitutional rights were violated in the timing of the filing of these proceedings. Voluntary departure. wife and two sons.2 for asylum and The consolidated cases are those of Hafiz's The Immigration Judge denied the applications of removal but found Petitioners withholding eligible for voluntary departure. the request for asylum (not Petitioners appeal denial of of removal) and the withholding procedural due process issue (discussed in Part IV). Petitioner Hafiz's request for asylum was based on his alleged fear for his life if he returned to Bangladesh. Making the Immigration Judge's determination the If the primary applicant is granted asylum. We review factual findings of the Board of Immigration Appeals to determine whether they are supported by substantial evidence.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="629"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19975283.MA2.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Lettman was convicted of a third degree murder in this country. We must decide if we have jurisdiction to determine our jurisdiction. If we have jurisdiction to decide jurisdiction. We can decide whether Lettman is a deportable alien. If Lettman is a deportable alien. If he is not deportable. Because Lettman was in deportation proceedings beginning in 1996. Lettman is covered by the IIRIRA's transitional rules because the BIA issued a final order of deportation on 7 July 1997. Provides: [T]here shall be no appeal permitted in the case of an alien who is inadmissible or deportable by reason of having committed [an aggravated felony]. Lettman was convicted of murder: an aggravated felony according to INA § 101(a)(43)(A). We must decide whether Section 309(c)(4)(G) prevents appeal (thereby depriving us of jurisdiction) when the BIA decides an alien is deportable or whether we have jurisdiction to decide if an alien is deportable. If the BIA's determination is binding on us. If we can decide whether Lettman is deportable.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="629"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//feb99/97-5283.ma2.html">LETTMAN V. RENO (2/26/1999, NO. 97-5283)<BR></A><BR>
Lettman was convicted of a third degree murder in this country. We must decide if we have jurisdiction to determine our jurisdiction. If we have jurisdiction to decide jurisdiction. We can decide whether Lettman is a deportable alien. If Lettman is a deportable alien. If he is not deportable. Because Lettman was in deportation proceedings beginning in 1996. Lettman is covered by the IIRIRA's transitional rules because the BIA issued a final order of deportation on 7 July 1997.</P> <P> Section 309(c)(4)(G) of the IIRIRA's transitional rules. Provides:</P> <P> [T]here shall be no appeal permitted in the case of an alien who is inadmissible or deportable by reason of having committed [an aggravated felony].</P> <P> Lettman was convicted of murder: an aggravated felony according to INA § 101(a)(43)(A). We must decide whether Section 309(c)(4)(G) prevents appeal (thereby depriving us of jurisdiction) when the BIA decides an alien is deportable or whether we have jurisdiction to decide if an alien is deportable.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="629"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/EE3CA4AFC71590DE88256D5E0078FC5C/$file/0270570.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
She is the mother of two minor United States citizen children. ASHCROFT 9381 immigration law was imminent. Which was to become law on April 1. The IJ surmised that the application had been filed with the INS Investigations Branch instead of the court and had been processed solely in order to show that Ramirez Zavala would have been eligible for suspension had she been put in proceedings. The IJ ruled that RamirezZavala was ineligible for suspension of deportation. The BIA held that her application was invalid. II [1] Because removal proceedings against Ramirez Zavala were commenced by the INS after April 1. She is not eligible to apply for suspension of deportation. Because that remedy was repealed by IIRIRA. 8 U.S.C. § 1229b (1997). [2] The fact that Ramirez Zavala filed an application for a suspension for deportation with the INS prior to IIRIRA's RAMIREZ ZAVALA v. RamirezZavala's filing of the suspension of deportation application with the INS before the issuance of an Order to Show Cause was ineffective. [3] We recently rejected a similar argument raised by another petitioner who approached the INS about suspension of deportation prior to the April 1.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="629"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/982411.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Oddo is a native and citizen of Thailand. Oddo told an INS investigator that the marriage was having problems. Oddo told an investigator that the marriage was arranged by his parents. An INS report prepared in March 1990 stated that the marital relationship was questionable because the couple separated. Oddo was at the INS office and confronted with information collected by an INS investigation into his marriage to Ms. Oddo admitted that the marriage was entered into for the sole purpose of obtaining an immigration benefit on behalf of Ms. Oddo that she was subject to exclusion proceedings. The petition was approved on December 20. The restaurant was notified that the INS intended to revoke its approval because Ms. Oddo filed a response which included several exhibits to support her claim that the marriage was valid. One of the exhibits was an affidavit prepared by Mr. Oddo in which he retracted his prior concession and stated that the marriage was not entered in order to evade immigration laws.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="629"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/744A1CA5F890067588257067004C9F64/$file/0415988.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Gonzales is substituted for his predecessor. P. 43(c)(2). **Michael Chertoff is substituted for his predecessor. Is hereby withdrawn.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="626"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/02/02-4247.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
BACKGROUND No. 02 4247 Tedros Medhin was thirty two years old when he appeared before the Immigration Judge. He was born in the country known today as Eritrea and he is a citizen of Ethiopia. When he was a child. Medhin alleges that he was fired from his job in the Ethiopian government's Ministry of Health because he was considered ethnically Eritrean. Medhin was unable to support his family or send his children to school following the loss of his job. When they found that he was not home. They informed Medhin's wife that Medhin was required to report for questioning. 000 ethnic Eritreans have been deported since the beginning of the border conflict. Medhin's original application for asylum was prepared by an individual hired by Medhin's brother. Medhin's attorney corrected the remaining error by informing the Immigration Judge that Medhin was seeking asylum on the basis of his nationality and political opinion. Including: (1) a letter from the Ethiopian Ministry of Health stating that it is
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="626"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/August2002/013472.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Practitioners who refused to renounce their beliefs were expelled from their schools or fired from their jobs.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="626"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/70C485B0373921AA88256A10006132BC/$file/9970754.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is corrected as follows: 1. It is so ORDERED. 3240 OPINION GOULD. I Petitioners are citizens of Mexico who entered the United States without inspection on December 9. Arguing that: (1) the stop time rule should not apply to Orders to Show Cause served before IIRIRA was enacted. (2) the application of the stop time rule to Petitioners is impermissibly retroactive. The IJ denied their suspension applications and found them deportable as charged.3 Petitioners appealed to the BIA arguing that the IJ should not have applied the stop time rule four days before IIRIRA took effect. An alien was eligible for suspension of deportation if (1) he or she
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="626"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/71E05352304C433188256E5A00707A96/$file/9970754.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is corrected as follows: 1. It is so ORDERED. 3240 OPINION GOULD. I Petitioners are citizens of Mexico who entered the United States without inspection on December 9. Arguing that: (1) the stop time rule should not apply to Orders to Show Cause served before IIRIRA was enacted. (2) the application of the stop time rule to Petitioners is impermissibly retroactive. The IJ denied their suspension applications and found them deportable as charged.3 Petitioners appealed to the BIA arguing that the IJ should not have applied the stop time rule four days before IIRIRA took effect. An alien was eligible for suspension of deportation if (1) he or she
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="626"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Sept2001/001428.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Immigration and Naturalization Service (the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="626"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/B256CBB362DA77F888256E680058B524/$file/0273499.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 and we deny the petition for review. Stated that he was released after his January 1994 arrest upon requesting legal counsel. He alleged for the first time that he was beaten by government police officers in March 1983 and was detained in 1985 and made to sign certain confessions. Taha testified that he was forced to sit on the bottle for seven hours. Taha was allegedly forced to walk through broken glass. May be disturbed only if Taha establishes
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="626"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200003/98-1570a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With her on the brief were Linda Sher. With her on the brief were Jonathan P. When the Board learned that one of these employees was an undocumented alien. It denied him reinstatement and terminated his backpay as of the date the employer discovered he was unauthorized to work. Because the Supreme Court has held that undocumented workers are protected by the National Labor Relations Act. Because the limited reme dy awarded here is within the Board's discretion and furthers the purposes of both labor and immigration law.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="626"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/02/02-1744.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is the proper respondent. 2 No. 02 1744 ing the expiration of her visa. Awad filed an application for political asylum claiming that she was subjected to persecution in Lebanon from a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="626"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/9E6D29E318F983B388256E240077A09F/$file/0270662.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Relief under the Convention Against Torture.1 He asserts that his claims were prejudiced due to ineffective assistance of counsel. Which he claims will recur if he is returned to China and that Lin's counsel failed to discover critical facts. I. JURISDICTION We have jurisdiction to review the BIA's Order dismissing Lin's Motion to Reopen under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(2). Which were adopted by this court in Lata v. For brevity's sake we will refer only to Lin's
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="624"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/01/01-3068.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
When the INS learned that he was back. Was detained on January 30. He was placed in expedited removal proceedings pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(1) and charged with being inadmissible as a noncitizen. Gomez Chavez was asked a number of questions to determine his identity. Gomez Chavez was assisted by neither an interpreter nor an attorney.). The removal was conducted pursuant to § 1225(b)(1). Gomez Chavez was de Nos. 01 3068. Which reads as follows: If the Attorney General finds that an alien has reentered the United States illegally after having been removed . . . the prior order of removal is reinstated from its original date and is not subject to being reopened or reviewed. The alien is not eligible and may not apply for any relief under this chapter. 01 3454 Gomez Chavez was released on July 19. It was at that point that he began the proceedings that have brought the case before us now. Which we conclude were ineffective to avoid the current removal order. Which was docketed on August 8. Constitutes a decision of the Attorney General to execute a removal order and therefore this court's jurisdiction is barred by 8 U.S.C. § 1252(g).
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="624"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/96429958DE49C8A688257283007F1342/$file/0472303.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1). He is not married. Dropped by the IJ's courtroom and indicated to the IJ that Weil Herrera
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="624"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/july99/98-9013.opn.html">ANIN V. RENO (7/12/1999, NO. 98-9013)<BR></A><BR>
His exceptional circumstances argument was time barred pursuant to INA section 242(B)(c)(3)(A). Because the BIA is not required to reopen deportation orders based on political asylum claims like Anin's under 8 C.F.R § 3.2(a) (1999).<A HREF=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="624"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAyLTQ4MzAtYWdfb3BuLnBkZg==/02-4830-ag_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
She was summarily dismissed from her engineering studies at a university. She was confined to an industrial job. Economic deprivations may rise to the level of persecution if they are
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="624"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/032055p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
No. 01 cv 01732) District Judge: Honorable Yvette Kane Converted to a Petition for Review from the Board of Immigration Appeals Pursuant to the Real ID Act of 2005 (A 24 003 878) Because we have converted the present case into a petition for direct review. We are required to substitute the Attorney General for the current respondent (Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement). 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(3)(A). * Argued May 9. Sitting by designation. 2 ** Appellee Mark Anthony Herbert Jordon filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania challenging a final order to remove him on grounds that he is a non removable. We will vacate the District Court's decision. I. Facts and Procedural History Jordon was born in London. Were married at the time of his birth. When Jordon was fourteen years old. Jordon was convicted in the Supreme Court of New York. An immigration judge found that he was deportable under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(2)(C) and entered an order of deportation in absentia on August 16.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="624"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0027n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The Board of Immigration Appeals and the Immigration Judge had substantial evidence to support their determination that Lam was not a refugee. I Samba Lam is a citizen of Mauritania who entered the United States without any valid means of entry in 1997. Lam primarily alleges that he was persecuted in Mauritania because of his race and ethnicity. After discovering that his store was being destroyed during rioting by
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="624"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/2117C3F27A15721988256E740074754D/$file/0216532.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Because NIBCO has failed to demonstrate that the protective order was either clearly erroneous or contrary to law. I. Factual and Procedural Background The plaintiffs in this dispute are twenty three Latina and Southeast Asian female immigrants once employed as production workers at NIBCO's factory in Fresno. California.1 All of the plaintiffs are of limited English proficiency. NIBCO allegedly responded with a The suit was originally brought by twenty five named plaintiffs as representatives of a similarly situated class. Some plaintiffs were demoted or transferred to undesirable job assignments. All plaintiffs were terminated in the period between July 30. NIBCO asked where she was married and where she was born. Although Rivera had specified that she was of
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="624"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA1LTMyNTMtYWdfb3BuLnBkZg==/05-3253-ag_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff is automatically substituted for former Secretary Tom Ridge. Gonzales is automatically substituted for former Attorney General John Ashcroft and Assistant Secretary Julie L. Myers is automatically substituted for former Assistant Secretary Michael J. We also hold that the IJ erred in denying Alrefae's motion to reopen because he failed to explain why Alrefae was not prima facie eligible to remove the conditional basis of his permanent resident status. He was ordered removed in absentia after he and his wife failed to file a timely joint petition to remove the conditional basis of his permanent resident status and he subsequently failed to appear for his removal hearing. We also hold that the IJ erred in denying Alrefae's motion to reopen because he failed to explain why Alrefae was not prima facie eligible for removal of the conditional basis of his residency status. BACKGROUND Aliens who attain permanent resident status by marriage to a citizen are initially granted that status on a conditional basis for two years. 8 U.S.C. § 1186a(a)(1).
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="624"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Jan2002/002293.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
000 in cash and checks from her employer (the First Union National Bank) was an aggravated felony as defined in section 101(a)(43)(M)(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="624"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/7CBD94FD44855B1D88256BF7007FD3D9/$file/0170584.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: Cookie cutter credibility findings are the antithesis of the individualized determination required in asylum cases. That integrity is called into question when boilerplate findings masquerade as individualized credibility determinations. Regrettably we have such a case here. The IJ's adverse credibility finding focused on demeanor observations that were worded identically to findings in two other opinions that the judge issued in the same week. Many of the remaining findings are not supported by the record. Or are an improper basis for making a credibility determination. These deficiencies are so significant that we conclude that the Board's decision is not supported by substantial evidence. BACKGROUND Paramasamy testified that she fled persecution by the Sri Lankan Army which detained and sexually assaulted her because she was a Tamil and consequently suspected of being a member of the rebel Liberation Tigers of Tamil Elam (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="624"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//july99/98-9013.opn.html">ANIN V. RENO (7/12/1999, NO. 98-9013)<BR></A><BR>
His exceptional circumstances argument was time barred pursuant to INA section 242(B)(c)(3)(A). Because the BIA is not required to reopen deportation orders based on political asylum claims like Anin's under 8 C.F.R § 3.2(a) (1999).<A HREF=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="624"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/06F0204EF76D12C088256D5C0064945F/$file/0271415.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
A new regulation was promulgated that changed that. He pleaded guilty to robbery in 1988 and was sentenced to two years in prison. Kankamalage was released and turned over to the INS. Was subject to deportation under former INA § 241(a)(2). Ruling that Kankamalage had not established that persecution was clearly probable if he were to be returned to Sri Lanka. The IJ found that Kankamalage was. That he was statutorily ineligible for withholding under 8 U.S.C. § 1253(h)(2)(B) (1994) and ineligible for asylum under 8 C.F.R. § 208.13(c)(2)(i)(A) (2002).1 At the time Kankamalage pleaded guilty to robbery in 1988. None of which was controlling. A conviction for a particularly serious crime was only one factor considered in the exercise of discretion. The government asserts that the appropriate legal provisions that apply in this case and that were actually applied by the BIA are 8 U.S.C. § 1253(h)(2)(B) (1994). Rather concedes that 8 C.F.R. § 208.13(c)(2)(i)(A) (2002) was applied in his case. He argues that the application of this regulation is impermissibly retroactive.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="624"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/01/03/991012P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
She asserts that sufficient time has passed that she can now * * * * * * * * * * * Petitions for Review of Orders of the Board of Immigration Appeals. meet the seven year requirement and that the BIA erred by concluding that the time stopped accruing when she was served with an order to show cause why she should not be deported. Escudero Corona is a native and citizen of Mexico. Where she and her daughter have lived since that time. While her mother was available to testify. Escudero Corona's medical records were inconsistent with her assertion of continuous physical presence prior to 1990. Escudero Corona had not established that she was continuously present in the United States for seven years immediately preceding her application for suspension of deportation. Finding that the newly submitted letters were not new evidence and that in any event. All postmarks but one dated 1990 were illegible. The BIA considered the affidavit of Luz Rodriguez but concluded that it was of
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="624"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/972358.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Section 1
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="624"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0260p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
BACKGROUND The Ramanis are ethnic Albanians and citizens of Macedonia who entered the United States without inspection on or about October 19. Which was submitted September 19. The first document was represented to be a copy of a legal summons from a Macedonian court directing Ramani to appear on October 12. The second document was a purported copy of an extract from the Macedonian penal code. Ramani testified that he had given the summons to his attorney who claimed to have misplaced it. He stated that he had torn off the portion of the document that he felt was irrelevant. Ramani's attorney admitted that he had made no attempt to obtain a copy of the Macedonian law from a source from which the IJ could have taken judicial notice. During the hearing Ramani testified that he is a citizen of Macedonia but that he is an ethnic Albanian. Which is approximately twenty kilometers from the Albanian border. He indicated that the group that typically organized the demonstrations was
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="622"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/535C24B69953E54988256B6E0016A06F/$file/9971306.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
His parents were beaten. The other members of the town government in his position were murdered by the guerrillas. That there were changed conditions in Peru. I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Petitioner is a native and citizen of Peru who entered the United States without inspection in October 1992. The Shining Path is an armed Maoist revolutionary group that seeks to overthrow the Peruvian government by force. Petitioner was elected one of four barrio presidents in his hometown of San Pedro de Cajas. His duties were roughly equivalent to a city councilperson and concerned town maintenance and various administrative matters. Were painted in the town's main square. 3334 In April 1990.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="622"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200416613.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: Petitioners are living in the United States on expired visas. Separate removal proceedings were initiated against all three in March and April. The government contends that this Court is without 2 jurisdiction to hear this case pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii). We hold that we have jurisdiction under this statute to review the denials of motions to continue removal proceedings. There was nonetheless no abuse of discretion in the immigration judges' decisions do so. Nizar Ghulamani are natives and citizens of Pakistan. The facts and procedural histories of their individualized cases are set forth below.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="622"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=00-1505.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Dragon P.C.</U> were on brief. Were on brief. <U>Circuit Judge</U>.</STRONG></FONT><FONT FACE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="622"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/6D28ED3494AE0CBE882570AB005C264F/$file/0370737.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Gonzales is substituted for his predecessor. The Immigration Judge's (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="620"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/July2003/022840u.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Amelvis Maria Rivera (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="620"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/8146620FDFF65E3588256E5A00707AA7/$file/9970861.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The petitioner was subjected to extreme abuse by her father. All of whose members were abused by her father. The 3471 petitioner presented evidence that the country of Mexico was unable or unwilling to do anything about this abuse. Which agreed that the petitioner had suffered persecution but concluded that she was not eligible for asylum on the ground of persecution on account of membership in a particular social group. The primary issue is whether the petitioner's immediate family. All of whose members lived together and were subjected to abuse by the petitioner's father. We also conclude that the petitioner was persecuted by her father on account of her membership in that social group. That Mexico is unable or unwilling to interfere with that persecution. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a) (1994 Supp. We grant the petitioner's petition for review and hold that she is eligible for asylum. We further hold that she is entitled to withholding of removal because she has established a clear probability of persecution if she returns to Mexico.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="620"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/9F526B73E0BD022B88257341004A4EAD/$file/0516005.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Singh's habeas petition was filed after the enactment of the REAL ID Act. The Act provides that a petition for review in the court of appeals is
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="620"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA1LTQ1NzMtY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/05-4573-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The District Court held that plaintiff appellant had been convicted of an aggravated felony and was thereby ineligible for citizenship because he could not establish the 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 good moral character required for naturalization. (2) Chan is. (4) Chan received the hearing he was entitled to under 8 U.S.C. § 1421(c). 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 I. The INS was divided into two different bureaus: the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement and the Bureau of U.S.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="620"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/2284F5546C210F35882571E7007F9835/$file/0273627.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Because these proceedings were initiated after the Act's effective date. A tenyear period of continuous presence in the United States was required to qualify for relief from removal rather than the seven year period that had previously been required to qualify for relief from deportation. Reduced the voluntary departure The INS was abolished by the Homeland Security Act of 2002. The majority of its immigration enforcement functions were transferred to the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement. We have two consolidated petitions for review before us. Padilla Enriquez (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="620"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=99-1211.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Whether this court has jurisdiction over his petition is a matter affected by one provision of the transitional rules of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996. That is. 309(c)(4)(E) precludes the exercise of jurisdiction only where: (1) the agency decision as to which review is sought is a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="620"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/03a0415p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We are persuaded that the BIA committed no error of fact or law and did not abuse its discretion when it dismissed Sswajje's appeal as untimely and later denied Sswajje's motion for reconsideration. I. Gerald Sswajje is a native and citizen of Uganda. Your lawyer is indicating he is reserving your right to appeal my decision. Which has found that you have not met your burden. Muchnicki is an experienced immigration attorney. It will be deemed abandoned and the Court's decision will become final. It will get there too late. Sswajje argued that the late filed appeal of the immigration judge's decision was excusable because his attorney had miscalculated the due date and because the merits of his immigration case allegedly showed he would face certain persecution if he were returned to his native Uganda. Since Sswajje's reconsideration motion confirmed that his appeal was untimely due to his counsel's error. An appeal is not deemed properly filed unless it is received at the BIA within the specified time for appeal.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="620"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-9508.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge. <hr> Petitioner Raul Cruz Garza seeks review(1) of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) upholding a removal order issued by an Immigration Judge (IJ) under 8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii) (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="620"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/2609AA6FF325B1F988256C3F00510B60/$file/0016928.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is amended as follows: At slip op. 12525. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(5) provides that
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="620"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=02-2153.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Petitioner Gregory Philbert Trevor Tyson was ordered removed from the United States in 1992 after having been convicted of a drug offense in state court. Was apprehended in 1997. In 1999 he was again removed from this country under the streamlined (1) This Order and Judgment is not binding precedent. That Tyson's attempt collaterally to challenge his 1998 conviction under 28 U.S.C. 2241 was improper. The district court's habeas jurisdiction in immigration cases is conditioned on the petitioner having exhausted all other available avenues for judicial review. Tyson has not shown sufficient cause and prejudice for us to excuse his error because his retroactivity challenge to IIRIRA's streamlined reinstatement rules is without merit since his guilty plea <hr> was entered well after IIRIRA went into effect. Was admitted to the United States as a permanent resident in 1979. Tyson was convicted in New York state of attempted criminal sale of marijuana. After Tyson was deported in 1992. Tyson was apprehended and charged with illegal reentry in violation of 8 U.S.C. 1326(a)(1).
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="620"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/FEFCC2268CCCF02888256A37005C4BF5/$file/9970096.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Jesus Torres Aguilar is a native and citizen of Mexico who first entered the United States without inspection in 1980. Torres Aguilar was self employed. In 1989 he was refused amnesty. The Immigration and Naturalization Service served TorresAguilar with an Order to Show Cause why he was not deportable on January 24. II This case is governed by IIRIRA's transitional rules. Are governed solely by INA's permanent. 1997 where the final order of deportation is filed after October 30. 1996 (thirty days after IIRIRA was signed into law). Because deportation proceedings were initiated against Torres Aguilar on January 24. Since a final order of deportation was issued on December 21. Torres Aguilar contends that the transitional rules do not apply to his case because his petition was filed on January 24. Torres Aguilar interprets the metaphor to mean that the transitional rules apply only to cases where the final order of deportation is filed between the two boundary dates. This is plainly incorrect: the transitional rules govern cases initiated prior to April 1.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="620"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/byDate/Jun2004/Jun04/03-30115-CV0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: Jaysukh Zalawadia was deported to India while his habeas appeal challenging the legality of the deportation order was pending. We hold that we have habeas jurisdiction over this petition. To grant relief beyond simply vacating the defective order under which he was deported. Whose liberty interests and rights are now no longer encumbered by the deportation order. Was admitted into the United States in September 1988. He pleaded guilty to a charge of burglary and felony theft and was sentenced to two years probation and required to pay restitution. They were not deportable
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="620"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/D3D0D69E565BFE3288256E5A00707B00/$file/9970096.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Jesus Torres Aguilar is a native and citizen of Mexico who first entered the United States without inspection in 1980. Torres Aguilar was self employed. In 1989 he was refused amnesty. The Immigration and Naturalization Service served TorresAguilar with an Order to Show Cause why he was not deportable on January 24. II This case is governed by IIRIRA's transitional rules. Are governed solely by INA's permanent. 1997 where the final order of deportation is filed after October 30. 1996 (thirty days after IIRIRA was signed into law). Because deportation proceedings were initiated against Torres Aguilar on January 24. Since a final order of deportation was issued on December 21. Torres Aguilar contends that the transitional rules do not apply to his case because his petition was filed on January 24. Torres Aguilar interprets the metaphor to mean that the transitional rules apply only to cases where the final order of deportation is filed between the two boundary dates. This is plainly incorrect: the transitional rules govern cases initiated prior to April 1.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="620"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/10392CBA8279900B88256C29007253A0/$file/0016191.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
2002 is amended as follows: on slip opinion page 3832. The statutory language was intended to remove a jurisdictional obstacle to litigation over applications pursuant to both the IRCA and the newly amended LIFE Act. Was not intended to retroactively bestow jurisdiction on the district court for the purposes of awarding fees. The petition for panel rehearing and the suggestion for rehearing en banc are DENIED. Which deals with a challenge to regulations as applied and implemented by the Immigration and Naturalization Service (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="620"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/F83487173153DB4E88256A16006274B4/$file/9970861.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The petitioner was subjected to extreme abuse by her father. All of whose members were abused by her father. The 3471 petitioner presented evidence that the country of Mexico was unable or unwilling to do anything about this abuse. Which agreed that the petitioner had suffered persecution but concluded that she was not eligible for asylum on the ground of persecution on account of membership in a particular social group. The primary issue is whether the petitioner's immediate family. All of whose members lived together and were subjected to abuse by the petitioner's father. We also conclude that the petitioner was persecuted by her father on account of her membership in that social group. That Mexico is unable or unwilling to interfere with that persecution. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a) (1994 Supp. We grant the petitioner's petition for review and hold that she is eligible for asylum. We further hold that she is entitled to withholding of removal because she has established a clear probability of persecution if she returns to Mexico.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="618"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0024n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is a Palestinian who seeks review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) that affirmed an immigration judge's denial of his claims for asylum. Abusada argues that the record supports his assertions that he suffered past persecution in his native country because of his religion and political opinion and that it is probable that he would be persecuted or tortured again should he return to the West Bank. The petitioner additionally asserts that his due process rights were violated by the BIA's refusal to consider his request for The Hon. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Abusada's primary claim was based on his status as a devout Christian living in the West Bank. He and other members of this organization were threatened by members of Hamas as they were leaving school. Contending that they were
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="618"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0810n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This is an appeal from the Board of Immigration Appeals' (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="618"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/DBE9D4CA0ED1CEF288256D4800728568/$file/0270193.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The United States will not
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="618"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAzLTQxNjZfb3BuLnBkZg==/03-4166_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Gonzales is substituted for former Attorney General John Ashcroft as Respondent. She alleges she was persecuted in her country of origin because she is a member of an ethnic and religious minority group and asserts that. She will face further persecution and possibly torture. BACKGROUND Petitioner is a 54 year old woman from the Republic of Georgia. Although her mother is Georgian. Petitioner's father was originally from South Ossetia. Harassment and even beatings
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="618"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Nov2003/023332p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We do not address the arguments concerning the summary affirmance procedure. 3 decision is supported by substantial evidence and that the BIA properly affirmed without opinion the IJ's determination that Mulanga failed to satisfy her burden of establishing eligibility for asylum and withholding of removal. We conclude that: (1) petitioner should have been given an opportunity to provide corroborating documentation of her husband's political affiliation or. (2) the decision is not supported by substantial evidence. The following account is based on two sources. The events relating specifically to Mulanga and her family are based on Mulanga's testimony (the credibility of which is disputed). Information about political events and conditions in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) is taken from the U.S. Mulanga was born on June 4. Their seven children were born in Kinshasa between August 1978. Mulanga's husband was a member of the opposition party. He was the local person . . . His primary function was to work with the young people and to help them how to function within the party.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="618"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0277n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
That the immigration judge's evidentiary rulings were justified. That no evidence compels a conclusion that country conditions in Albania are such that Thanasi could establish a well founded fear of future No. 05 4490 Thanasi v. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Thanasi is an Albanian national who entered this country on a visitor's visa in 2001 and overstayed the period authorized by the visa. Thanasi was removed from the prestigious Parliament
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="618"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/2CA71D5B7C33966D882570E600797513/$file/0272390.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Are natives and citizens of Ethiopia who petition for review of a final order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denying their application for asylum and withholding of removal. Petitioners argued that if the family were returned to Ethiopia. We conclude that the IJ's determination concerning Petitioners' FGM argument is not supported by substantial evidence. The record does not support the conclusion reached by the IJ and adopted by the BIA that the risk that Petitioners' daughter will be subjected to FGM is too small to establish a well founded fear of persecution. Both children are U.S. citizens. The office concluded that Petitioners were aliens who had overstayed their visas and referred them to an IJ for further proceedings. Arguing that if their family was required to return to Ethiopia. Female genital mutilation is extremely painful. We review the IJ's decision as if it were that of the BIA.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="618"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0702n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
He was initially granted asylum by an immigration judge in December 1999. The basis for the motion was a report from the INS's forensic document laboratory that refuted the validity of documents submitted by Sy to establish his Mauritanian nationality. The ruling of the immigration judge was affirmed by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA). Sy testified that he was born in Teckan. He related details about his education and testified that he was a supporter of Ould Daddah. The first was allegedly in October 1998. When he was detained after he organized a protest march against preferential treatment for Beydane students (described as
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="618"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/07/98-9540.htm">98-9540 -- BASOVA V. IMMIGRATION & NATURALIZATION SERVICE -- 07/14/1999<BR></A><BR>
The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <p> Tatyana Vladimirova Basova. Has filed a petition for review from the decision of the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) that she is not entitled to political asylum or withholding of deportation. She later married a Ukranian national who is a lawful permanent resident having been granted political asylum. She claimed she was eligible for asylum because she had been repeatedly abducted and raped by members of the Chechen mafia for over two and one half years. <p> The Immigration Judge (IJ) determined Ms. Basova did not have a well founded fear of persecution on any of the five grounds enumerated in 8 U.S.C.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="618"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/alpha-idx.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Eleventh Circuit
OPINION/ORDER
Having decided that our prior interpretation of the BIA's power under the INA was overly narrow. We overrule Molina Camacho and determine that we do have jurisdiction to review the BIA's decision in such cases. GONZALES I Marjorie Lolong is an Indonesian woman of ethnic Chinese descent. She is also a Christian. When she was still a student in this country. The IJ held that Lolong was eligible for asylum. The BIA concluded that Lolong could not establish that her fear of future persecution in Indonesia was objectively reasonable because there was evidence that the Indonesian government had taken steps to bring militant Islamic groups which were largely responsible for the outbreaks of religious and ethnic violence under control. We have narrowly construed the BIA's authority under the INA both to enter an order of removal in the first instance. As is the case here. We noted that the BIA lacks statutory authority to enter orders of removal and held that any attempt by the BIA to do so was a
OPINION/ORDER
He was involved in a relationship with a woman named Elena Bonilla. Briceno also admitted that Jesus is not his biological son. The three boys are United States citizens. She is apparently physically unable to work. Thus Briceno is and has been the sole wage earner for the household. Removal proceedings were initiated against Briceno on January 24. This request was granted. His cancellation of removal hearing was considered by an immigration judge in Memphis on August 17. Briceno was represented by counsel at this hearing. Briceno was only able to produce tax returns from four of the ten years he had been living in the United States. Was unable to offer a sound explanation for his failure to pay No. 05 4550 Briceno Dorado v. Because he was not Briceno's son. Because she was not a member of Briceno's family. Important factors in the judge's decision were that neither boy had physical or emotional problems. That there was no evidence Briceno could not work in Mexico and send them money should they need it.
OPINION/ORDER
We have substituted Alberto Gonzales for John Ashcroft as the named respondent. 2 Nos. 03 4039 & 04 1484 of the immigration judge's decision. The INS ceased to exist as an independent agency within the Department of Justice and its functions were transferred to the newly formed Department of Homeland Security. 3 Nos. 03 4039 and 04 1484 3 (3) protection under the Convention Against Torture (
OPINION/ORDER
Was deported. A federal offense for which he was convicted and sentenced to prison. 3) suppress evidence that was seized during an illegal arrest. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a) and 28 U.S.C. § 1291. His efforts were unsuccessful. Was later charged with more than twenty offenses involving the attack and rape of two women. Unlawful possession of a handgun and subsequently was sentenced to prison terms of seven and four years. Carvajal Garcia was paroled into the custody of the INS. The INS later realized that Carvajal Garcia was already subject to a prior deportation order. Was still in the Country illegally. Carvajal Garcia subsequently was charged with illegal reentry and illegal reentry following a conviction for an aggravated felony. Was tried in the District of New Jersey. If a defendant is not brought to trial within this time. Both sides have detailed at length the complicated procedural history of this case. It is not necessary for us to repeat this information here. The District Court stated it was giving no weight to its prior order and was considering anew the issue of whether the first indictment should be dismissed with or without prejudice.
OPINION/ORDER
Gonzales is substituted for his predecessor. The immigration judge found Nuru to be a credible witness but denied him relief on the grounds that he had not suffered past persecution as a result of his political opinion and that he would not be tortured if he were returned to Eritrea. The BIA adopted these findings and further found that Nuru's punishment by the Eritrean military was not disproportionately harsh and that he had not pre 4456 NURU v. Nuru argues that it is more probable than not that he will be tortured if he is returned to Eritrea. That he has a well founded fear that he will be similarly persecuted in the future. That he is eligible for asylum and entitled to withholding of removal. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Ukashu Nuru is married to a permanent resident of the United States and has a U.S. citizen son. When the Immigration and Naturalization Service (
OPINION/ORDER
Circuit Judge: Petitioner Sokha Sun was born in a refugee camp in Thailand as a Cambodian refugee. Sun's status was adjusted to lawful permanent resident (
OPINION/ORDER
Chen made the statements during an interview with an Immigration and Naturalization Services (
They were joined for briefing and oral argument. Even though they were filed before AEDPA's enactment. (1) * Mr. Retroactivity AEDPA section 440(a) states that final orders of deportation entered against aliens who are deportable for specified criminal offenses
OPINION/ORDER
Lived in the United States as a lawful permanent resident until his removal was ordered by an immigration judge because he had committed a crime of moral turpitude. I. Sundar entered the United States in 1983 and was granted legal permanent resident status that same year. He pleaded guilty in New York to burglary and was sentenced to an indeterminate sentence of not less than two years and not more than six years of imprisonment. Which alleged that Sundar was subject to removal from the United States because he had committed a crime of moral turpitude. The immigration judge decided Sundar was subject to remov al on the c harge alle ged in th e notice to appear. The judge also ruled during the course of the hearing that because he had been convicted of an aggravated felony Sundar was not eligible for discretionary relief under INA § 212(c).1 On August 6. 1998 eight years after he had been convicted of the aggravated felony that caused the removal Su ndar was finally removed fro m the United States. 2 It appears from the record that Sundar did not even apply for discretionary relief.
OPINION/ORDER
This is an appeal from the Board of Immigration Appeals' (
OPINION/ORDER
Congress was silent whether the elimination of § 212(c) relief applied retroactively to people who were convicted of crimes before 1996. Aliens who committed aggravated felonies were placed in deportation proceedings after being served with an Order to Show Cause. Aliens were placed in removal proceedings after being served with a Notice to Appear. The Supreme Court noted that
OPINION/ORDER
Did not have authority to re enter the country. They then concluded that Tapucu was a
OPINION/ORDER
We have substituted Attorney General Alberto Gonzales for former Attorney General Janet Reno as the respondent in this case. * 1 2 3 4 5 6 cross appeals the District Court's denial of his request to apply for naturalization. The habeas corpus petition is converted into The a petition for review and said petition is granted. Petitioner's cross appeal is dismissed as Petitioner failed to raise the issue of naturalization eligibility before the Bureau of Immigration Appeals. 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 Matthew L. Wilson is required to make an individualized showing that he decided to forgo the opportunity to affirmatively file for section 212(c) relief in reliance on his ability to file for such relief at a later date. The case is remanded to the BIA for further remand so that relevant findings of fact on the issue of such individualized reliance can be made. Wilson's cross appeal regarding the district court's ruling on his eligibility to apply for naturalization is dismissed for lack of appellate jurisdiction.
OPINION/ORDER
Fletcher *Alberto Gonzales is substituted for his predecessor. Because the IJ's determinations were supported by substantial evidence. The Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) issued Nahrvani a Notice to Appear alleging that he was removable under Section 237(a)(1)(B) of the Immigration and Naturalization Act for remaining in the United States longer than was permitted. He was arrested and jailed for approximately two years as a result of his participation in an anti government demonstration. Nahrvani was repeatedly tortured. Where he was granted political asylum and permanent residency. Was informed that he must first renounce his Iranian citizenship. His bicycle and car were damaged. He testified that officials from the Iranian Consulate were
OPINION/ORDER
Was a citizen and The Honorable Kathleen M. 1994 marriage to United States citizen Julie Hernandez and the filing of an I 130 application to establish Petitioner's relation to Julie Hernandez.1 Under what (prior to subsequent amendment) was § 212(h) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. If an I 130 petition is granted. On grounds that Petitioner may have been born in the United States. Citizens are ineligible to submit I130 petitions. The letter stated that the decision was unappealable but that a motion to reopen could U.S. After finding that Petitioner was deportable because he was born in Mexico and had entered the United States without inspection. Once it had been established that Petitioner was not a citizen. Before the BIA's order was issued. Various attorneys have represented Petitioner throughout the deportation proceedings. The two disputed allegations were that Petitioner: (1) was not a citizen or national of the United States and (2) was a native and citizen of Mexico. The undisputed allegations were that 3 No. 02 3763 Petitioner: (3) entered the United States at an unknown place on an unknown date.
OPINION/ORDER
Which was beyond their control. They were unfairly held to a retroactive application of an amendment to section 240A(d) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. At the time the or ders to show cause were served. The Pinhos did not have seven years of continuous physical presence in the United States. They had been continuously physically present in the United States for more than seven years when their case was heard on January 6. The Pinhos have strong ties to their community. Their children were educated here. The Board requested supplemental briefing to addr ess changes in the 3 immigration laws that occurred while the Pinhos' appeal was pending. Which was enacted after the judge's decision. The only question befor e us is whether the Board properly applied the new continuous physical presence requirement (the stop time rule) to the Pinhos' pending deportation proceedings. We believe clarity is served by r eferring to it in this opinion as the Reform and Responsibility Act). Suspension of deportation was a form of discr etionary relief available to aliens who had been determined to be deportable and who met certain statutory criteria.
OPINION/ORDER
We must decide whether 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(C) which bars our review of a removal order when the alien
The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.
Petitioner Regina Tamoshaityte filed this petition for review of the decision of the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) that she is not eligible for political asylum. We conclude that the INS was correct to deny the petition.
OPINION/ORDER
We hold that CAT claims are cognizable under § 2241. I. Facts and Procedural History Ogbudimkpa is a citizen of Nigeria who entered the United States in 1982 on a non immigrant student visa. In 1994 Ogbudimkpa was convicted and sentenced on state drug charges and. Return (`refouler') or extradite a person to another State where there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture.
OPINION/ORDER
Is amended as follows: Slip opinion at 4373 4374: eliminating the final two paragraphs in Part II. 4640 CEDANO VIERA v. Circuit Judge: Jose Cedano Viera is a native and citizen of Mexico who entered the United States as a lawful permanent resident (LPR) in April 1993. He was later convicted of Lewdness with a Child Under Fourteen Years of Age in violation of Nevada law. Charging that Cedano Viera's conviction was an
OPINION/ORDER
Who is facing removal to Haiti. Claims that he will be indefinitely detained upon his arrival in Haiti in prisons that are notorious for their brutal and deplorable conditions that have been compared to those existing on slave ships. There is no doubt that the prison conditions that Auguste and others like him may face upon their removal to Haiti are indeed miserable and inhuman. We find that Auguste is not entitled to relief. We will affirm the decision of the District Court. Is a native and citizen of Haiti who was admitted to the United States as a lawful permanent resident on December 8. Auguste was convicted of Attempted Criminal Sale of a Controlled Substance (cocaine) in the third degree in Queens County. Auguste argued that he was entitled to a deferral of removal on the grounds that he faces torture in Haiti because. He will be detained by Haitian authorities for an indeterminate amount of time in harsh and intolerable prison conditions. Who have incurred a criminal record while residing in the United States and who have already served their sentences.
OPINION/ORDER
Angelina Miguel is a native and citizen of Guatemala who was discovered by Immigration and Naturalization Service agents after a warrantless entry into her home. Miguel claims that the evidence obtained during the search of her house should have been suppressed because the search violated the Fourth Amendment. Angelina Miguel is a 25 year old native and citizen of Guatemala. Miguel was at her residence in New Philadelphia. With another woman and three children whom they were babysitting. Miguel was allegedly upstairs No. 02 3758 Miguel v. Who were soon joined by two more agents. The agents announced they were looking for a person named Maria Garza. Miguel told the agents that she did not have any
OPINION/ORDER
Arguing that: (1) the stop time rule should not apply to Orders to Show Cause served before IIRIRA was enacted. I Petitioners are citizens of Mexico who entered the United States without inspection on December 9. The IJ denied their suspension applications and found them deportable as charged.3 stop time rule to Petitioners is impermissibly retroactive. An alien was eligible for suspension of deportation if (1) he or she
Asserting he had been subject to past persecution in China and feared future persecution because he was a
OPINION/ORDER
The appeals raise essentially the same issues and have been consolidated for our consideration. Besem Selimi is an ethnic Albanian citizen of Macedonia. He was granted lawful permanent residence in the United States in 1991. As is recounted in an earlier case. When they arrived in New York they were detained by the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS). (2) were not in possession of valid nonimmigrant visas. (3) were not in possession of valid travel documents. (4) were not in possession of valid immigrant visas. They were ordered to present themselves for deportation on April 9. His request was summarily dismissed for failure to satisfy the requirements of 8 C.F.R. § 3.2(c)(1). Except on one occasion when his house was searched. That he did not meet the essential statutory or regulatory requirements that the new evidence sought to be offered was material and not available at the former hearing. They argued that country conditions in Macedonia had changed to such an extent since their last hearing that they had a well founded fear of future persecution and that it was more likely than not that they would be tortured if they returned to Macedonia.
OPINION/ORDER
Is a citizen of Albania who seeks review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) that summarily affirmed an immigration judge's denial of the petitioner's claims for asylum. Gjelaj contends that the immigration judge improperly held both that he was not credible in regard to his claims of past persecution and that he had filed a frivolous application for relief in this matter. We conclude that there is substantial evidence to support these findings. Gonzales The petitioner was born in December 1975 in Albania and lived the first 15 years of his life under what the United States Department of State refers to as
OPINION/ORDER
The IJ therefore ruled that Martinez was no longer a permanent resident eligible for section 212(c) relief. Finding that no proceedings after the alleged withdrawal of the earlier appeal were valid. This case is governed by the transitional rules set forth in section 309(c) of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (
OPINION/ORDER
Petitioner filed an application for asylum and withholding of removal with the Immigration and Naturalization Service (
OPINION/ORDER
After the parties argued this case but before this opinion was filed. Jama should have challenged the INS's decision to remove him to Somalia by bringing a timely petition for review in this court following the administrative proceedings that resulted in his final order of removal to Somalia. Congress has directed that
OPINION/ORDER
Arguing that: (1) the stop time rule should not apply to Orders to Show Cause served before IIRIRA was enacted. I Petitioners are citizens of Mexico who entered the United States without inspection on December 9. The IJ denied their suspension applications and found them deportable as charged.3 stop time rule to Petitioners is impermissibly retroactive. An alien was eligible for suspension of deportation if (1) he or she
OPINION/ORDER
That the Board of Immigration Appeals (
OPINION/ORDER
Petitioner is a 21 year old native citizen of Iraq. He is a member of the Chaldean community and attended the Chaldean Catholic Church in Iraq. Sitting by designation. 1 previously petitioned for asylum) were in the business on October 7. The officers took petitioner away in a car with a hood over his head and did not tell him where they were taking him. He was taken to a place that he could not identify and held in a small room. Petitioner was taken into another room where officers demanded that he sign a document ceding the liquor business to the government. Petitioner testified that he did not He sign the document and was held for two months and three days. further testified that although he was not beaten. He was often taken into another dark room where he was held naked and splashed with cold water. Petitioner was detained until he signed a document ceding the liquor business to the government. Petitioner returned to his hometown and told his family and friends about the experience once he was released. building was built around the Petitioner discovered that a new family business.
OPINION/ORDER
INS 8323 timony was not credible because it was inconsistent with information he gave during his airport interview. Was conducted through an unofficial translator who did not even speak Singh's own language. We conclude that this credibility finding and the Board's other misgivings about Singh's testimony are not supported by substantial evidence. Who claims to have been a Sikh since birth. Conditions in Noormahal and the Punjab in general were anything but normal.
OPINION/ORDER
Circuit Judge: We are asked to decide if a state misdemeanor conviction for vehicular homicide is a
OPINION/ORDER
Was admitted to the United States in September of 1990 as a non immigrant visitor for pleasure. Alim was arrested for assaulting Lora. Adjudication was withheld. Alim was sentenced to nine months' probation. Alim were interviewed by the Immigration and Naturalization Service in January of 1999. Alim was indicted in federal court for making false statements at his INS interview. Alim was convicted on the federal false statements charge on April 12. Alleging that he was also subject to removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(ii) as an alien convicted after admission to the U.S. of two or more crimes involving moral turpitude (i.e. Alim also explained that he was planning on filing an application for adjustment of status to that of a permanent resident under 8 U.S.C. § 1255. Had yet to do so because Elizabeth's visa petition was pending. Alim was approved. Is a
OPINION/ORDER
That Murray and Gould had never actually worked for him and that they were threats to national security. We will continue to refer to the INS. 2 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 BACKGROUND In 1998. Who are responsible for general oversight and enforcement of the IPPCTP provisions. The PA is responsible for monitoring participants' compliance with program requirements. The PA is required to terminate from the program Id. § 139.4. NGIT was selected as the any participant who is fired for cause. The PA is obligated to report to the DOS and INS on certain aspects of the program. After they were approved to participate in the IPPCTP. They began to have concerns about Smith's conduct. did not pay them and told them that business was too slow. That both of them were working for many different employers. That Murray was getting his pilot's license. That they were both working for others in the Las Vegas area. That Murray was getting his pilot's license in order to open a business in Yemen.
OPINION/ORDER
Is a native and citizen of Mexico. It was served on Martinez Garcia the same day but was not filed with the immigration court prior to April 1. An IIRIRA Notice to Appear was issued on April 18. Alleging the same charges that were stated in the OSC. Martinez Garcia also argued she should have been eligible for suspension of deportation under pre IIRIRA law. Because she was served with the original OSC prior to the effective date of IIRIRA. This too was denied by the IJ. Martinez Garcia was granted voluntary departure upon the posting of a $500 bond. The IJ's decision was summarily affirmed without opinion by one member of the BIA. The BIA's determination of purely legal questions is reviewed de novo. Was of good moral character. Or child who is a citizen or lawful permanent resident of the United States. 8 U.S.C. § 1254 (repealed). Child or parent who is a citizen or lawful permanent resident of the United States (and no longer upon the alien herself). 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b). [1] Congress also changed the way deportation proceedings are commenced.
OPINION/ORDER
Odell & Calabria was on brief. Were on brief. She is the mother of two children. Her first claim is that the BIA erred when it failed to exercise its authority under 8 C.F.R. 3.2(a) to reopen her case on its own motion. When her motion to reopen was untimely. The Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) asserts that jurisdiction over this claim is barred by Immigration and Naturalization Act (INA) 242(a)(2)(B). INA 242(a)(2)(B) states that
OPINION/ORDER
We grant the petition and hold that Baballah and his family are eligible for asylum and entitled to withholding of removal. I. Abrahim Baballah is an Israeli Arab.1 Baballah's parents Because Baballah was found credible and his testimony is thus accepted as undisputed. The facts recounted here are derived from his testimony. ASHCROFT were the only Jew and Muslim to marry in his hometown of Aka. He was called
1182(h) is not facially unconstitutional. Was admitted to the United States as a permanent resident in 1972. Was later transferred to Colorado to complete it. Latu was given a place to appear before an immigration judge (IJ). He appeared before an IJ on July 31 and was given three weeks to obtain counsel and respond to the charges. During which the INS orally informed him that he was charged with violating
OPINION/ORDER
Mahabir was then eligible to apply because she was currently employed pursuant to an employment visa.
The notice to appear was sent to Mr. Gurung to have abandoned his application for asylum. Gurung
OPINION/ORDER
This appeal from a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals is accompanied by a lastminute motion to remand filed by Respondent. Which were promulgated in 1984 to govern undercover investigations by the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS). No longer applied because INS was reorganized under the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and therefore the Attorney General was no longer the head of INS. Its functions were assumed by agencies within the newly formed DHS. The Guidelines were irrelevant to Pieniazek's case. Piotr Pieniazek was admitted to the United States on September 7. He arrived from Poland as a nonimmigrant visitor and he was authorized to stay in the United States for a short time. His visit was not to exceed March 6. Pieniazek was subsequently charged with removability as an alien who remained in the United States for a time longer than permitted. Some of the evidence gathered to support the government's charge was obtained from the INS undercover investigation known as
The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.
Ray Yohannes Fesseha filed this petition for review of the decision of the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) that he is not eligible for political asylum or withholding of deportation. We conclude that the INS was correct and deny review.
Petitioner arrived in the United States on July 30. An alien must first establish that he is eligible for refugee status. See Kapcia v. An alien must present specific facts establishing either that he previously was persecuted in his native country or that he has a genuine and reasonable fear of being persecuted if he returns there. See id. at 707. If the alien succeeds in establishing that he was the victim of past persecution. A presumption of genuine and reasonable fear of future persecution arises which the INS can rebut only by showing that conditions within the country have changed. The alien's fear is no longer reasonable. See Nazaraghaie v.
OPINION/ORDER
Died prior to the time the decision was filed. The decision is filed by a quorum of the panel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 46(d) (1994). They are the Anti Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (
OPINION/ORDER
Petitions this Court for review of a final order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (
OPINION/ORDER
1 natives and Don is the principal or lead petitioner. His wife's and child's petitions are derivative of his petition. They conceded that they are removable. Because a cook employed at the restaurant owned by Don was arrested by the TDB as a suspected LTTE terrorist. He and his family were not threatened or harmed by the government or any terrorist groups. He did not support nor was he active in any political group. He did not know that the cook was a Tamil Tiger until his arrest. Don stated that subsequently his life was threatened by the LTTE once in person outside of Colombo. Neither he nor his family was physically harmed.3 Don agreed to try to get the cook released. Contacted several of his friends at the police station where the cook was imprisoned. He would
OPINION/ORDER
Ashcroft has been appointed to serve as Attorney General of the United States and is substituted as appellee under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 43(c)(2). 1 Before WOLLMAN. This is an appeal from the district court's3 adverse grant of summary judgment affirming the denial by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) of Atmera Gipson's application to have her husband. After Sathekge was apprehended by the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) in May of 1994 for overstaying his visa. Deportation proceedings were instituted against him. Seeking to have Sathekge classified as an immediate relative of a United States citizen. After the INS confronted Sathekge with evidence that he was not the person identified as
OPINION/ORDER
Were on brief. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. 1105a(a) (1988). BACKGROUND Petitioner is a forty four year old native of Portugal who entered this country as a lawful permanent resident in 1975. He was charged with. Petitioner was sentenced to a fifteen year prison term. He was paroled after serving nineteen months and is currently on probation. The stepdaughters were ages eight and eleven. 2 1251(a)(4) (1988). The factors that should be considered before granting a waiver were discussed in Matter of Marin. Factors which will tend to support a denial of discretionary relief include such things as (1) the serious nature or 2At least seven circuits have explicitly approved Marin's formulation of an approach to evaluating petitions for relief under section 212(c). It is incumbent upon a petitioner not only to demonstrate that favorable factors preponderate but also to present
OPINION/ORDER
Circuit Judge: This case is on appeal from the district court's grant of a preliminary injunction staying Estanislao Mapoy's deportation and its accompanying order of Mapoy's release from INS custody. I. Estanislao Mapoy is a native and citizen of the Phillippines who entered the United States on September 3. A warrant of deportation was issued and Mapoy was ordered to report for deportation on or around November 14. 1997.1 After the initial proceedings were completed. Adjustment of status.2 Mapoy based his Motion to Reopen on new circum 1 We are unable to determine from the record exactly when Mapoy was ordered to report for deportation and when he was scheduled to be deported. The INS argued that as a matter of law Mapoy was not eligi3 stances that were not present at his 1993 application for suspension of deportation. Who was expecting their first child and would be qualified to become a U.S. citizen in September 1998. An approved I 130 relative visa petition his spouse had filed on his behalf.3 Mapoy's child was born on October 30.
OPINION/ORDER
Is corrected as follows: 3218 1. (2) the application of the stop time rule to Petitioners violates due process because it is impermissibly retroactive. The BIA should have considered time accumulated after service of the OSCs. (2) the application of the stop time rule to Petitioners violates due process because it is impermissibly retroactive. The BIA should have considered time accumulated after service of the OSCs. 4. It is so ORDERED. Petitioners contend that they were eligible for suspension of deportation. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY Petitioners are ethnic Indian natives and citizens of Fiji. While their petition to this court was pending. Petitioners argued that suspension was appropriate because. While they were in deportation proceedings. (2) the application of the stop time rule to Petitioners violates due process because it is impermissibly retroactive. The BIA should have considered time accumulated after service of the OSCs. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1105a(a). Were allowed to reopen their deportation proceedings for adjustment of status because they had married United States citizens.
OPINION/ORDER
In December 1989 he filed his first application for asylum which was denied. Kovalev appeared before an Immigration Judge (
OPINION/ORDER
Are natives and citizens of Bulgaria. Petitioners conceded that they were subject to deportation but sought asylum or withholding of deportation based on a number of adverse experiences in Bulgaria that they ascribe to official persecution based on Toptchev's political and religious beliefs. The petitioners have filed a petition for review of the BIA's decision and ask us to reverse. He was well known in Bulgaria. It appears that he was never able to hold a coaching position. Toptchev believes that he fell into disfavor with Bulgarian security personnel for two reasons: He is Catholic. Catholics are a religious minority in Bulgaria. When Toptchev was 17. A police officer accosted him while he was awaiting a streetcar because Toptchev was dressed in Western style clothing. When Toptchev was playing for a soccer team in the town of Shumen. It seems that Toptchev had agreed to have dinner with foreign guests who were staying at the hotel where he worked. Officials released him from custody only after he signed a written statement acknowledging that he was to avoid such contact in the future.
OPINION/ORDER
ADEWUNMI ARE. The sole issue in this appeal is the timeliness of an indictment for the crime of being
OPINION/ORDER
We consider whether the BIA's construction is permissible and hold that it is. The petition for review is DENIED. Gonzales is automatically substituted for former Attorney General John Ashcroft as the respondent in this case. 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 APPEARING FOR PETITIONER: STANLEY H. Circuit Judge: The central question presented by this petition is whether false oral statements made under oath during an asylum interview can constitute
OPINION/ORDER
We will affirm the BIA's decision. Petitioner Alibocas is a native and citizen of Trinidad. Her husband was an assistant pastor. Alibocas's husband died before his application for adjustment of 2 status was adjudicated by the INS.1 Alibocas withdrew her application for adjustment of status after her husband died. Was granted voluntary departure for sixty days. 1 Alibocas stated that her husband filed for religious worker status on or about March 16. Which was approved on September 23. We have jurisdiction under Section 242(a) of the INA. We generally afford deference to decisions of administrative agencies when we are reviewing the agency's interpretation of a statute the agency is charged with administering. The BIA properly held that Alibocas was ineligible for adjustment of status Before the BIA. He would have been granted status as a lawful permanent resident prior to his sudden death. Alibocas claims that she then would have been able to adjust her status and would not have had to undergo removal proceedings.
OPINION/ORDER
Is corrected as follows: 3218 1. (2) the application of the stop time rule to Petitioners violates due process because it is impermissibly retroactive. The BIA should have considered time accumulated after service of the OSCs. (2) the application of the stop time rule to Petitioners violates due process because it is impermissibly retroactive. The BIA should have considered time accumulated after service of the OSCs. 4. It is so ORDERED. Petitioners contend that they were eligible for suspension of deportation. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY Petitioners are ethnic Indian natives and citizens of Fiji. While their petition to this court was pending. Petitioners argued that suspension was appropriate because. While they were in deportation proceedings. (2) the application of the stop time rule to Petitioners violates due process because it is impermissibly retroactive. The BIA should have considered time accumulated after service of the OSCs. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1105a(a). Were allowed to reopen their deportation proceedings for adjustment of status because they had married United States citizens.
2003 is granted. A copy of the opinion is attached.
Entered for the Court
PATRICK FISHER. Petitioners contend on appeal that they are entitled to asylum. Even if they were properly denied asylum. When asylum is denied but deportation to one country is withheld.
OPINION/ORDER
We have substituted Attorney General Alberto Gonzales for former Attorney General John Ashcroft as the respondent in this case. Creating a new category of 'removal' proceedings that largely replaces what were formerly exclusion proceedings and deportation proceedings.
OPINION/ORDER
Were on the briefs. Were on the briefs. Were on the brief. Were on the brief for cross appellees Jack Lawn. Were on the brief for amici curiae International Human Rights Organizations and International Law Scholars. That Alvarez
OPINION/ORDER
Because these minimal due process requirements are clear and fundamental. Petitioner was prejudiced by an adverse credibility determination unsupported by substantial evidence. Which was believed to be the work of Indian security forces. Singh was arrested during an AISSF rally that he organized in Jallhandar. He was held in jail for fifteen days. He was never charged with a crime nor brought before a judge. He was held for twenty days. The police told him he was arrested because of his association with Sikh militants. Singh was arrested for a third time. He was held by the police for thirteen days. During which time he was beaten until he lost consciousness. His head was shaved. He was then forced to stand for hours under the hot summer sun. Singh testified that he was arrested for a fourth and final time while distributing party posters and collecting party funds. He was held in jail for thirtyfive days. He was tortured. So he was unable to file a brief. We have jurisdiction over a final removal order pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1).
Weng's motion for a stay is denied because he has not satisfied the new
OPINION/ORDER
We have jurisdiction over Azanor's petition for review pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1105a(a). She was born and raised a member of the Urobho tribe in Kanduna. Azanor was approximately four months pregnant when her boyfriend's female relatives locked her in a room. The procedure was conducted with a razor under unsanitary conditions. No anesthesia was administered. Three months later she was admitted to a hospital where she prematurely delivered a daughter. Azanor argues that she is entitled to relief from deportation because her United States born daughter. Will likely suffer FGM if she accompanies her mother to Nigeria. The Board then denied Azanor's motion to reopen with respect to her asylum and withholding of deportation claims because her motion was neither timely filed under 8 C.F.R. § 3.2(c)(2) (now codified at 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2)).
OPINION/ORDER
Hall was ordered to be deported because of his conviction of making false statements to a federally licensed firearms dealer in connection with the purchase of a firearm. Because we determine that Hall is an alien convicted of a deportable firearms offense. Hall and three other individuals were indicted on firearms charges in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. Was the true purchaser of the handguns. Hall was indicted for making and for conspiring to make a false statement to a federally licensed dealer in connection with a firearms purchase. The conspiracy count was dropped. Hall was sentenced to pay a $500 fine and to perform community service. 2 On April 19. Judicial review of final deportation orders was governed by section 106 of the INA. Those rules apply to aliens who were already in deportation proceedings before April 1. Whose final deportation order was entered more than thirty days after September 30. The parties agree that IIRIRA's transitional rules apply to this case because Hall was in deportation proceedings before April 1.
OPINION/ORDER
We have substituted Attorney General Alberto Gonzales for former Attorney General John Ashcroft as the respondent in this case. Creating a new category of 'removal' proceedings that largely replaces what were formerly exclusion proceedings and deportation proceedings.
OPINION/ORDER
Alberto Gonzales is automatically substituted for his predecessor. Etchu Njang is a native and citizen of Cameroon who last entered the United States on September 27. His application was not granted. He testified that he feared a return to Cameroon because his father and one of his brothers had also belonged to the SDF and were missing or dead
OPINION/ORDER
Subsequently filed a motion to reopen on the grounds that she is a United States citizen. Taniguchi also filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus alleging (1) that she is a United States citizen. (3) that her former attorney was ineffective. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Was admitted to the United States as an immigrant in July 1973. Taniguchi pled no contest to the offense of theft in the first degree (three counts) in Hawaii state court and was sentenced to five years imprisonment with each count to run concurrently. Was sentenced to an extended term of ten years with each of the counts to be concurrent to each other and to any other term she was serving. She was convicted in the United States District Court. She was also convicted of impersonating a citizen of the United States in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 911. That Taniguchi was removable under three separate grounds: (1) Immigration and Nationality Act (
OPINION/ORDER
Circuit Judge: We consider whether the fugitive disentitlement doctrine applies to an alien who goes missing while his petition for review of a deportation order is pending. 1428 ANTONIO MARTINEZ v. INS Background Petitioner Pasqual Antonio Martinez was a rope maker in Guatemala in the 1970s. His new job was to go door to door shaking down local villagers for food and money to support the guerrillas. Antonio Martinez conceded deportability but argued that he was entitled to asylum because he had been
Weng's motion for a stay is denied because he has not satisfied the new
OPINION/ORDER
Is substituted as respondent pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 43(c). 1 I. While their asylum application was pending. Jean was presented with the opportunity to go to Canada for field research and to assist a class that he was teaching. Jean was required to obtain a
OPINION/ORDER
Is GRANTED. Is amended as follows: At 464 F.3d 1024. That footnote is to state: The government points out that it is precluded by regulation from disclosing any information relating to Hosseini's asylum application
OPINION/ORDER
We are presented with a petition for review of a final deportation order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (
The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.
Petitioner Jesus Manuel Yanez Torres challenges the reinstatement of his June 22. We have jurisdiction to review the final order reinstating the 1981 deportation order under 8 U.S.C.
OPINION/ORDER
Circuit Judge: Masoud Hosseini is an Iranian citizen who came to the United States on a student visa. He was ordered deported as an overstay. The immigration judge also denied relief under the Convention Against Torture on the ground that Hosseini had failed to show that it was more likely than not that he would be tortured if deported to Iran. The Immigration and Naturalization Service (
OPINION/ORDER
Rene Blanco was convicted of various drug crimes. He further contends that a flight instruction should not have been given to the jury. We do not know whether there is additional Brady and Giglio material that the government has still not turned over to the defendant. Was harmless. Was convicted of conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 846. Rivera is a Mexican national who had previously been in the United States illegally but had received a
OPINION/ORDER
Gonzales is substituted for his predecessor. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We conclude that the BIA erred when it found that Yepez Razo was not
OPINION/ORDER
3) the availability of § 212(c) relief to an alien who was not charged as removable as an aggravated felon by the INS but has been convicted of an aggravated felony. Entered and was admitted to the United States as a permanent resident on 2 August 1994.1 After his arrest in late January 1997. The only physical evidence that Taylor offered in support of that date was his 1990 passport stamp showing that he entered as a non immigrant visitor. Stated that Taylor was admitted as a visitor. Finding that Taylor did not have the requisite five years as a lawful permanent resident to qualify for relief. While his appeal with the BIA was pending. The Board also affirmed the IJ's determination that Taylor was ineligible for relief under INA § 240A. The Board determined that Taylor was ineligible for relief under INA § 212(c). All three elements of the statute were satisfied: Taylor was an alien. 4 concluded that the district court did have jurisdiction to review the habeas petition. 2) that Taylor was ineligible for the cancellation of removal under INA § 240A.
OPINION/ORDER
INS 14569 I Petitioner appellee Gilberto Martinez Vazquez (
OPINION/ORDER
We will deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review. I. Daud was born in Pakistan on March 20. Daud was served with a Notice to Appear by the Immigration and Naturalization Service (
OPINION/ORDER
We conclude that the court order materially altered the relationship between Carbonell and the government and that this alteration was judicially sanctioned. We therefore hold that Carbonell is a prevailing party and remand the case to the district court for further proceedings. Which was subsequently rescheduled. His attorney was notified of the change in date but never informed him. Of which Carbonell was unaware. Under the mistaken belief that he was still lawfully in the United States. It was then that he was informed of the in absentia order of deportation. The motion to reopen was denied and Carbonell appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals (
OPINION/ORDER
Garcia Lopez contends that the BIA erred when it determined that he was ineligible for suspension of deportation under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA)'s
OPINION/ORDER
Is amended as follows: On slip opinion page 2600. 1028 29 (9th Cir. 2000) (stating that persecution occurring because a person is a member of the military is not persecution on account of a statutory ground). Is distinguishable. The evidence showed that the petitioner himself had
OPINION/ORDER
Circuit Judge: Jamalur Rashid Chowdhury petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' (
OPINION/ORDER
Different panels of this court reversed the Board of Immigration Appeals in whole or part in a staggering 40 percent of the 136 petitions to review the Board that were resolved on the merits. For the 82 civil cases during this period in which the United States was the appellee. Was 18 percent. Our criticisms of the Board and of the immigration judges have frequently been severe. 610 (7th Cir. 2005) (
OPINION/ORDER
We hold that the determination whether the BIA properly employed its streamlined
OPINION/ORDER
Circuit Judge: Jamalur Rashid Chowdhury petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' (
OPINION/ORDER
Lazaro Borrero is an inadmissible alien subject to a final order of removal. Will not accept his return. He was held in the custody of the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) upon his release from prison on state drug and firearms charges on September 11. He was released from INS custody on January 4. I. The facts underlying this appeal are undisputed. Borrero is a citizen of Cuba who arrived at the border of the United States in 1980 during the Mariel boatlift. Borrero was convicted of simple battery in 1983. Borrero was convicted of possession and sale of cocaine and possession of a pistol by a felon. While Borrero was in state custody on his 1993 convictions. Borrero was released from state custody into the custody of the INS. The Associate Commissioner was unable to conclude that Borrero's parole would be in the public interest. Absent a significant likelihood that Borrero 2
OPINION/ORDER
Was on brief for respondent. He was convicted of possessing one half ounce of cocaine. Be deported if the alien is within one or more of the following classes of deportable aliens: . . . . (2) Criminal offenses. Mosquera was found deportable and. The BIA affirmed. is convicted of an aggravated felony at any time after entry is deportable. . . . . Is deportable. 8 U.S.C. 1251(a)(2)(A)(iii). Section 1158(d) was added to the Immigration and Nationality Act by the Immigration Act of 1990. 3Asylum and withholding of deportation are distinct forms of relief for aliens facing persecution in the nation of origin. Is mandatory when deportation to a particular nation would threaten the alien's life or freedom on account of race. Withholding of deportation is
OPINION/ORDER
APPENDIX IS NOT FOUND ON THIS COPY.]. Victoria Lewis with whom Greater Boston Legal Services was on brief for petitioner. Were on brief for respondent. These questions were all based on information in the Order to Show Cause (the OSC). A form indicating that Davila Bardales was deportable.1 The IJ asked the petitioner whether he was a
OPINION/ORDER
The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. HARTZ. Benad Abiodun is a native and citizen of Nigeria who entered the United States lawfully in 1996. He contends that (1) he was nationalized when he signed an oath of allegiance as part of his naturalization application process. (2) his due process and statutory rights were violated when his application for naturalization was denied. (3) the records of the Colorado conviction on which his removal was based were falsified. The verdict was not supported by sufficient evidence. (4) his due process rights were violated by the issuance of an immigration detainer shortly after his state conviction. Holding that signing an oath of allegiance during a naturalization examination is insufficient to confer citizenship. Removal proceedings are not a proper forum to attack either the denial of an application for naturalization or a state court conviction. There is no record support for a claim of falsification. His application for naturalization was denied by the Denver District Director of the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services (BCIS).
OPINION/ORDER
For relief under the United Nations Convention Against Torture were denied based on the Immigration Judge's finding that Camara's testimony was not credible. Inasmuch as it was made the final agency determination). Stating that she was coming to attend a wedding but actually intending to seek asylum here. Stating that she was eligible for asylum
OPINION/ORDER
This is an immigration case in which the petitioner. The issues before us are: (1) whether substantial evidence supports the BIA's conclusion that the petitioner was not credible. (2) whether substantial evidence supports the BIA's conclusion that the petitioner failed to show that in the event he is removed to Sri Lanka. It is more likely than not that he would be tortured by a government agent. I. Background Perinpanathan is a native and citizen of Sri Lanka. He was apprehended by the Immigration and Naturalization Service when he attempted to enter the United States at the Minneapolis/St. He was interviewed under oath by an immigration officer at the airport with the aid of an interpreter. He stated that he was a member of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) and that he had participated in its military activities in Sri Lanka because the LTTE was an organization that
OPINION/ORDER
The petition for review is DENIED. Shqutaj was represented by counsel and was provided with a court appointed Albanian language interpreter. The only evidence submitted was his own affidavit. Which was nothing more than a restatement of his allegations that he did not understand his rights and that the proceeding was incorrectly translated. Again merely iterating his claims that he did not understand his rights and that the proceeding was incorrectly translated. The immigration judge's decision is the final agency determination. This Court will review the decision of the immigration judge directly. The denial of a motion to reopen is reviewed for abuse of discretion.1 INS v. 625 26 (6th Cir. 2004) (stating that the BIA abuses its discretion when it exercises it
Rezai also contends that the BIA should have remanded his case for reopening of the deportation proceeding. His father was a high ranking official in the Shah's government. Rezai claims that he was very involved in the Council of Iranian Royalists during his years in Germany. Nor does it list the Council of Iranian Royalists as a group of which he was a member. Rezai was granted conditional permanent resident status on the basis of his marriage to a United States citizen. A waiver is available where deportation would result in extreme hardship or where the alien can prove that he married in good faith even though the marriage was subsequently terminated. We have noted that a grant of asylum requires two steps. The alien must establish that he is a refugee by proving either past persecution or a
OPINION/ORDER
Are natives and citizens of Peru. Cardenas was employed by a merchant shipping company. The Cardenas family was targeted by the Shining Path. Are derivative of Cardenas's application. 1 CARDENAS v. In part because his brother was a police official. The Cardenas home was painted with the words
He alleges that removal would be inconsistent with the United Nations Convention Against Torture.
OPINION/ORDER
I believe that 18 U.S.C. § 3583(d) provides only that a defendant who is subject to deportation may be surrendered to the INS for deportation proceedings in accordance with the Immigration and Naturalization Act (
OPINION/ORDER
We conclude that the answer to that question is
OPINION/ORDER
He was removable under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(B)(i). Was admitted to the United States in July 1993 as a nonimmigrant visitor. Peters was convicted in Arizona state court for felony solicitation to transport marijuana for sale and was sentenced to four years' probation. Rendering deportable
OPINION/ORDER
ORDER The Government's request in its petition for panel rehearing to correct a factual error is granted to the following extent to clarify the opinion. The first two sentences of the paragraph that begins at the bottom of slip op. 5152 and continues on page 5153 are deleted and the following is inserted in its place: Defense counsel did not inform Kwan that. The petition for rehearing is otherwise denied. Because we find that Kwan's counsel was constitutionally ineffective in affirmatively misleading him as to the immigration consequences of his conviction. Are United States citizens. Kwan was indicted for two counts of bank fraud. Defense counsel assured Kwan that although there was technically a possibility of deportation.
He alleges that removal would be inconsistent with the United Nations Convention Against Torture.
OPINION/ORDER
Wu argues on appeal that certain of the IJ's factual findings were not supported by substantial evidence. Is actually designated at 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(e). Entered the United States illegally and was immediately detained by immigration authorities at Brownsville. He was forcibly subjected to a vasectomy by Chinese family planning authorities.2 Wu also testified that after his sterilization. His wife was subjected to involuntary insertion of an intrauterine device (
OPINION/ORDER
D.C. 20044 Counsel for Respondent This case was argued before the panel of Judges Ambro. It is filed by a quorum of the panel. 28 U.S.C. § 46(d). We do not have jurisdiction to consider the IJ's conclusion that Alaka abandoned her lawful permanent resident status. I. Factual Background Alaka is a citizen of Nigeria who entered the United States without inspection in November. Is now called the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement. She was ultimately denied this relief. There are thus two sets of facts relevant to this petition: Alaka's criminal history and her trips abroad.2 In 1992. Alaka was convicted in the United States for aiding and abetting bank fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1344 and 2. She was indicted on three counts for conduct involving fraudulent checks. Alaka was convicted. For which the actual loss was $4. She argued at sentencing that the finding of intended loss should be based only on the charge for which she was convicted. Alaka is a member of the Yoruba tribe in Nigeria and a Christian.
OPINION/ORDER
Is the proper respondent pursuant to Fed. Were deported in absentia because they did not appear at their 2692 ANDIA v. The application was prepared by an immigration consultant1 and represented that petitioners' address for the last five years was 2130 Crescent Avenue. Petitioners allege that they have never lived at that address. That in fact the address was that of the immigration consultant. The OSCs were accepted at that address. The return receipt was signed. The immigration court issued a notice There is ambiguity in the record about whether this consultant was one Carmen Bolanos or one Hector Marcos. Also about whether Bolanos was an employee of Marcos. 1 ANDIA v. The notice was sent to petitioners again via certified mail on January 23. This notice was returned to the court. Decided the IJ was in error in this regard. As petitioners are not required to establish a prima facie case for eligibility of relief from deportation to reopen in absentia proceedings. 3 The petitioners failed to appeal the BIA's denial of their motion to reconsider.
OPINION/ORDER
That the repeal of suspension of deportation under the former Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) § 244(a) has an impermissible retroactive effect on aliens like him who 2 pled guilty to a deportable offense and who would have been eligible for suspension of deportation relief but for the repeal. Was authorized to stay in this country only until October 10. He was sentenced to five years probation. Which was approved on August 14. Hernandez's adjustment of status application was denied and a Notice to Appear was issued on June 21. Is now called the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement. The IJ ruled that Hernandez was ineligible for relief on both grounds because of his 1984 New York conviction. The IJ ruled that the 1984 New York conviction was for Hernandez. A hearing was held and. The IJ determined that Hernandez was ineligible for the relief he sought. Who was not in INS custody. A petition for review is now the sole and exclusive means of judicial review for all orders of removal except those issued pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(1).
OPINION/ORDER
He was placed in immigration proceedings in 1997. The Immigration Judge held that his application was
OPINION/ORDER
That inquiry will inform our determination as to whether Bagot is correct that Respondents deported him to Guyana illegally. Having been in his father's legal custody at the time the father was naturalized. He is derivatively a United States citizen. Who was in Guyana at the time and had never been to the United States. The District Court was confronted. As we are here. With the difficult question of how to define
OPINION/ORDER
We are called upon to review an order of exclusion issued by the United States Immigration and Naturalization Service (
OPINION/ORDER
The threshold issue is whether we have jurisdiction to entertain his petition. Alleging that petitioner was subject to deportation pursuant to INA § 241(a)(1)(B). In accordance with the notice provision of the rules that is applicable to appeals in which the appellant is proceeding pro se. The BIA's decision was mailed to petitioner's last address of record. This time limit is mandatory and jurisdictional. The late notice may be deemed to have been constructively filed within the jurisdictional limits.
Because Soliman was removed from the United States and returned to his native country of Egypt on June 11. He is no longer being detained or force fed by the INS. His appeal is moot. The appeal must therefore be dismissed and the district court's order vacated.
OPINION/ORDER
Before us is what originally was the Government's appeal from an order of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (Dalzell. What is now before us is a petition for review alleging the same procedural due process violations as were asserted in Mr. We make no judgment as to whether or not the failure of an Immigration Judge or the Board of Immigration Appeals to advise 2 1 Bonhometre did not exhaust the administrative remedies that were available to him as of right at the agency level. I. FACTS Frebert Bonhometre is a native and citizen of Haiti who was granted temporary legal residency status on September 15. His common law wife and three children are all United States citizens. He was sentenced to a prison term of not more than three years. Bonhometre served two years of his sentence before he was released into the custody of the Immigration and Naturalization Service 2 (
Because Soliman was removed from the United States and returned to his native country of Egypt on June 11. He is no longer being detained or force fed by the INS. His appeal is moot. The appeal must therefore be dismissed and the district court's order vacated.
OPINION/ORDER
Petitioner argues that the IJ's decision to reject petitioner's asylum and withholding of removal claims was not based on substantial evidence and that any reasonable factfinder would be compelled by the record to grant her relief. Petitioner also argues that the IJ and BIA erred in not considering sua sponte whether petitioner was entitled to relief under the Convention Against Torture. 1995 and was admitted as a nonimmigrant visitor. She applied for asylum largely on the basis of claims that she had been persecuted in Ukraine because she is a Jew. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B) (
OPINION/ORDER
Petitioner Kwabena Essuman is a native and citizen of Ghana who overstayed his non immigrant visitor visa. He was ordered removed from the United States in July 2003. The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent. That petition is No. 05 9573. While the motion to reopen was pending before the BIA. That petition was transferred to this court under the provisions of the REAL ID Act of 2005. Our No. 05 9587 was opened. The two cases were consolidated for appeal. He learned that his father in Ghana was dying. Petitioner maintains that he was never advised of the submission of the fraudulent documents or of the INS's denial of the 1996 petition. Ever sought to procure . . . [an] immigration benefit
OPINION/ORDER
Gonzales is substituted for his predecessor. He is subject to the
OPINION/ORDER
Omar contends that his Minnesota convictions for criminal vehicular homicide are not aggravated felonies. Because we conclude that criminal vehicular homicide is an aggravated felony under federal law. They have a child born in the United States. Omar was drinking with friends after work when one of them received a call from some Somalis at the airport who asked to be picked up in his sport utility vehicle. The friend felt he was unable to drive because of the alcohol he had consumed. Everyone was thrown from it. Two passengers were killed. Another was badly injured. Omar's blood alcohol content was measured soon after the accident at 0.11. He was sentenced to 48 2 months for each offense. The sentence was stayed on condition he serve two years in a county workhouse and pay restitution. It held that criminal vehicular homicide is an aggravated felony within the meaning of the INA. Because by its nature it involves a substantial risk that physical force may be used against the person or property of another and is therefore a crime of violence under 18 U.S.C. § 16(b).3 Omar petitioned this court for review and moved for a stay of deportation.
OPINION/ORDER
That he entered into his first marriage for the sole purpose of obtaining an immigration benefit and is thus ineligible for an adjustment of status to that of lawful permanent resident on the basis of his subsequent marriage. Which was approved in October 1994. The INS
OPINION/ORDER
Were on brief for respondent. This appeal requires us to decide whether the Board's
OPINION/ORDER
Circuit Judge: This appeal presents the question whether the Attorney General's decision to revoke a visa pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1155 is barred from judicial review by a jurisdictionstripping provision added to the Immigration and Nationality Act (
OPINION/ORDER
The BIA held that because the Immigration and Naturalization Service's charging document was not filed until after April 1. 110 Stat. 3009 (1996) petitioners were no longer statutorily eligible for the pre IIRIRA remedy of suspension of deportation but instead could only seek cancellation of removal under IIRIRA. 1997 did not have
OPINION/ORDER
His voluntary departure period is automatically tolled while he is awaiting a decision from the BIA on his motion. GONZALES for a determination of whether Barroso was denied his statutory right to counsel of his choice.1 I. BACKGROUND Barroso is a native of Mexico who entered the United States in 1985. Although Cabrera told Barroso that he was an attorney. He was not. He was a
OPINION/ORDER
Gormley additionally claims that he experienced criminal persecution on account of his race when he was twice robbed by black men. Gormley claimed a fear of persecution
OPINION/ORDER
His primary contentions on appeal are that (1) the crime of reckless endangerment is not a crime involving moral turpitude for purposes of the Immigration and Nationalization Act (
OPINION/ORDER
We hold that we have no jurisdiction to review that action and therefore dismiss the petition for review. He was convicted in the Eastern District of California of an offense described in the criminal judgment as follows: Title & Section 21 U.S.C. 841 (a)(1) Nature of Offense Accessory after the fact to the Manufacture of Methamphetamine The record does not contain a copy of the superseding information to which he pleaded. He was sentenced to 66 months imprisonment. INS 5951 his conviction was for an aggravated felony and an offense related to a controlled substance. The Board stated that Olivera Garcia
OPINION/ORDER
Circuit Judge: The main issue presented in this petition is whether evidence. Silva applied for asylum and alleged that she was persecuted in Colombia by the Revolutionary Armed Forces (FARC). Because Silva's testimony at her asylum hearing failed to establish that the threats she received were more than mere harassment and she failed to establish that the shooting incident was based on her political opinion. I. BACKGROUND Silva was admitted to the United States as a nonimmigrant visitor on March 8. Was authorized to remain in the United States until March 12. Just before she was scheduled to depart. She was persecuted in Colombia by the FARC. She 2 received a written death threat that was signed by the FARC. Two men shot at her car while she was driving and hit the rear window. The application also stated that the FARC continued calling Silva daily until she left the country and that on the last call she was told that she was missed on October 9 but would not be missed again. Relevant portions of Silva's asylum application are attached as Appendix A to the dissenting opinion.
The INS had denied Galvez's application for citizenship because he could not demonstrate that he was attached to the principles of the Constitution. Understood the oath of allegiance and was willing to take the oath as provided in sections . There is no dispute that the only reason Galvez could not make this showing was because of physical disabilities and mental impairment resulting from severe Downs Syndrome. It is undisputed that Galvez otherwise met all qualifications for citizenship.
The district court ordered the INS to grant Galvez's request for naturalization upon finding that the INS had violated section . The INS argued against this result on the ground that the oath of allegiance and attachment are essential requirements for naturalization that cannot be waived pursuant to the Rehabilitation Act or otherwise.
After this appeal was submitted for decision. The applicant was unable to understand or comply with this requirement as a result of a disability or mental impairment. The INS represented to the Court that Galvez is qualified for waiver of the oath and attachment requirements under this provision and that it had decided to waive these requirements for Galvez and approve his application for naturalization.
OPINION/ORDER
Were on brief. This is the first case to address this argument involving the interpretation of 8 C.F.R. § 1003.25. We hold that there was no error in the admission of the telephone testimony of the witness and that Akinwande's other arguments fail. Who is an American citizen. Akinwande himself were among the witnesses who testified during the hearings. Which were affirmed without opinion by the BIA. That Akinwande was not eligible for adjustment of status.
Suarez Tejeda is a Mariel Cuban who has been ordered removed from the United States. Suarez Tejeda argues that his detention and the procedures applied to his parole review are unconstitutional in light of Zadvydas and Tenth Circuit precedent. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
OPINION/ORDER
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. I. Petitioner Delmy Leticia Argueta Rodriguez was born on February 18. She was ten years old when her family village of El Mozote was massacred by Salvadoran army soldiers in December 1981. Argueta Rodriguez was with her grandmother in a nearby village the day of the massacre. She applied for political asylum in July 1992 but was denied. Deportability was conceded in written court pleadings of September 23. Relief was denied by the Immigration Court in the hearing on December 2. The Board determined that Petitioner was a credible witness but agreed with the Immigration Judge that she had failed to establish eligibility for asylum or withholding of deportation. The Board held that the actions of the Salvadoran army did not establish that the victims of the massacre were persecuted on account of race. The Board took note of the fact that Petitioner was outside the village when the inhabitants were massacred and there was no indication that Petitioner or other former residents were sought out by the army.
OPINION/ORDER
Certain aliens who were placed in deportation proceedings before April 1. The motion was granted. A hearing was held in August 2000. He said that he feared losing much of his investment in both his business and real estate holdings and stressed that his company generates substantial revenues and employs almost a dozen persons who could lose their jobs if he is forced to sell. Bronisz is forced to sell his property and business. He argues that his removal would have a
OPINION/ORDER
As petitioner has failed to show that he was prejudiced by the alleged defects in the program. The Notice to Appear alleged (1) that Zerrei is a national and citizen of Morocco. (2) that he was admitted to the United States on or about September 30. (3) that he applied for and was granted an extension of his nonimmigrant stay valid until September 29. The INS was reconstituted as the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement and the Bureau of U.S. When removal proceedings are brought against an alien who has been admitted to the United States. The government bears the burden of establishing that the alien is removable by clear and convincing evidence. 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(3)(A). 286 (1966) (holding that
OPINION/ORDER
Was ordered removed from the United States based on his conviction for a
He contends the questioning by Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) agents that led to his arrest was a seizure unsupported by reasonable suspicion. Was convicted of sale and transportation of cocaine in California in 1993. Was deported to El Salvador. While he was working as a roofer on a job site in Aurora. INS was also informed that some vehicles at the job sites had Texas license plates.
OPINION/ORDER
At an interview to determine whether Petitioners were eligible for adjustment of status. Holding that Petitioners were ineligible for waiver under § 212(i) of the INA and nunc pro tunc relief. B. Substantive Facts Petitioners Jagubhai and Vanitaben Patel are natives and citizens of India. The IJ denied discretionary waivers holding that Petitioners were not eligible for relief under the current version of § 212(i) of the INA and that it did not have the authority to issue a nunc pro tunc order retroactively admitting Petitioners into the United States. Jurisdiction This Court does not have jurisdiction to review a decision of the BIA granting or denying a waiver of removal under INA § 212(i) because such a decision is within the discretion of the Attorney General. 8 U.S.C. 1182(i)(1) (2) (
OPINION/ORDER
I. BACKGROUND Mateo is a 39 year old native of Guatemala. He was born and raised in the municipality of San Sebastian Coatan. After telling the guerrillas that he
OPINION/ORDER
Is substituted for the Immigration and Naturalization Service as the proper respondent. Is hereby amended. The petition for panel rehearing and the petition for rehearing en banc are DENIED. No further petitions for rehearing will be entertained. IT IS SO ORDERED. The procedural challenge is based on the BIA's refusal to grant him leave to file a
OPINION/ORDER
Petitioners contend that they were eligible for suspension of deportation. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY Petitioners are ethnic Indian natives and citizens of Fiji. While their petition to this court was pending. Petitioners argued that suspension was appropriate because. While they were in deportation proceedings. Were allowed to reopen their deportation proceedings for adjustment of status because they had married United States citizens. They are not parties to the current petition. 1763 we reversed and remanded to the BIA for further review of hardship. (2) the application of the stop time rule to Petitioners violates due process because it is impermissibly retroactive. The BIA should have considered time accumulated after service of the OSCs. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1105a(a). Which determine whether an old rule or a new rule from IIRIRA applies to aliens who were in the administrative process when IIRIRA took effect (
OPINION/ORDER
Most of which is irrelevant to the issue we must resolve. Ghounem is a native of Egypt. The couple have been married over seven years and have three children who are United States citizens. Both of which were denied. All three documents were delivered to 5 View Court. The IJ found that
OPINION/ORDER
Defendant argues that the district court erred in denying his motion to dismiss the indictment on the ground that the underlying deportation order was invalid. This is the second time it has been before us. By collaterally attacking the deportation order upon which the charge was predicated. Scott claimed that he was prejudiced during the deportation proceeding by his counsel's ineffective assistance namely. We now conclude that Scott was prejudiced by his counsel's ineffective assistance and that entry of the underlying deportation order was
OPINION/ORDER
Remand the case to the United States Attorney General Alberto Gonzales is substituted as Respondent. They also warned members
OPINION/ORDER
We have jurisdiction to review the final order of the BIA under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. A Sikh separatist group whose political objective is the establishment of an independent state called Khalistani. The IJ found that Ray's testimony was not credible and denied his application for asylum and for restriction on removal. The notice of appeal did not indicate that Ray was represented by an attorney and provided only Ray's home address as contact information. The list was written in English. Although the BIA explicitly stated that it was summarily affirming the IJ's decision because of Ray's procedural default. We are not persuaded that the Immigration Judge's ultimate resolution of this case was in error.
OPINION/ORDER
We have jurisdiction to review the final order of the BIA under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. A Sikh separatist group whose political objective is the establishment of an independent state called Khalistani. The IJ found that Ray's testimony was not credible and denied his application for asylum and for restriction on removal. The notice of appeal did not indicate that Ray was represented by an attorney and provided only Ray's home address as contact information. The list was written in English. Although the BIA explicitly stated that it was summarily affirming the IJ's decision because of Ray's procedural default. We are not persuaded that the Immigration Judge's ultimate resolution of this case was in error.
OPINION/ORDER
Since Petitioner did not have lawful travel and immigration documents. 1 he was detained and questioned at the airport by immigration officials for three hours. He was provided a translator over the telephone. Petitioner did not have problems with any person. Was not threatened with death or bodily harm in Albania. Contending that he was Petitioner indicated that he traveled with unlawful documents because his applications for a lawful student visa were denied by the United States Consulate in Albania. 2 1 No. 05 4044 persecuted in Albania on the basis of his political opinion and membership in a particular social group. Petitioner stated that he had a fear of returning to Albania because he was persecuted by the police and the socialist government. Arguing that he was fatigued at the time of the questioning. Petitioner was actively involved in political activities. (J.A. 62 63) He stated that the Democratic Party did not Although Petitioner asserts that he was involved with the Democratic Party. He was unable to produce documents to corroborate his membership and participation. 3 2 No. 05 4044 recognize the 1997 election results.
OPINION/ORDER
Petitioners contend that they were eligible for suspension of deportation. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY Petitioners are ethnic Indian natives and citizens of Fiji. While their petition to this court was pending. Petitioners argued that suspension was appropriate because. While they were in deportation proceedings. Were allowed to reopen their deportation proceedings for adjustment of status because they had married United States citizens. They are not parties to the current petition. 1763 we reversed and remanded to the BIA for further review of hardship. (2) the application of the stop time rule to Petitioners violates due process because it is impermissibly retroactive. The BIA should have considered time accumulated after service of the OSCs. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1105a(a). Which determine whether an old rule or a new rule from IIRIRA applies to aliens who were in the administrative process when IIRIRA took effect (
OPINION/ORDER
Were on brief. An immigration judge (IJ) denied Yve Sumaya Amparo de Ocasio's petition for permanent resident status and granted her request for voluntary departure after concluding that her marriage to Willy Ocasio was a sham. The petitioner contests the BIA's decision because Willy Ocasio's testimony was submitted by affidavit. She therefore did not have the opportunity to cross examine him. The petitioner was lawfully admitted to the United States for permanent residence on a conditional basis.
OPINION/ORDER
Anker was on brief for petitioner. Were on brief for respondent. A presumption that petitioner had a reasonable fear of persecution in the future if he were to return to Haiti. On the basis that he has suffered political persecution in his home country of Haiti and that such persecution will resume if he returns to Haiti. Fergiste was born in Port au Prince. Was both devoted to community improvement and involved with politics.
OPINION/ORDER
The Immigration and Naturalization Service was reconstituted as the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement and the Bureau of U.S. We conclude that we have jurisdiction over the petition. She was detained and interviewed by United States Immigration officers. Who she said was a Yugoslavian who had a greencard. marriage. She said she had no friends
OPINION/ORDER
Circuit Judge: Mauro Antonio Cano Merida (
OPINION/ORDER
Steiner were on brief. Were on brief. Was arrested by INS agents on February 20. He was ordered deported in August 1998. Navarro has never argued that he should be allowed to stay in the United States because he is legally here. He argues only that the INS arrest and later proceedings were so flawed as to entitle him to the relief of cancellation of deportation. We uphold the order of deportation.
I.
The following facts appear from the decision of the Immigration Judge or from the record and are supported by substantial evidence. 1990 and was presently working in Boston for Dobbs. Although it is not clear from the record how this information was obtained. Navarro testified that he could have chosen not to go. The employees arrived at the terminal and were met by six government agents. Several employees were questioned and. Were allowed to step away from the group. When Navarro was asked for his name and nationality. He produced a driver's license and stated that he was from Peru.
OPINION/ORDER
Chang and the government agreed in a written plea agreement that the loss to the victim that resulted from the bank fraud conviction was $605.30. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Chang is a native and citizen of South Korea but has lived in the United States as a legal permanent resident since the age of five. Chang was served with a federal indictment charging him with fourteen counts of bank fraud. The deal between Chang and the government was reduced to writing in a plea agreement. The core of the plea agreement is the understanding that Chang would give up his right to a trial and instead plead guilty only to Count Seven of the 6 CHANG v. Count Seven charged Chang with cashing a $605.30 check that he knew was counterfeit at a Safeway grocery stor
