Anin v. Reno case brief summary
188 F.3d 1273 (1999)
CASE FACTS
Petitioner alien entered the United States with an alien in transit visa, but he failed to depart or seek approval to stay. Petitioner did not attend his deportation hearing, and the motion to reopen his deportation proceeding was denied. Petitioner sought final review of the order and argued that the decision constituted an abuse of discretion because he lacked proper notice of deportation proceedings and his lack of notice violated due process. Petitioner also argued that his lawyer's ineffective assistance amounted to an exceptional circumstance and that he possessed a viable political asylum claim that was ignored.
DISCUSSION
The court affirmed the decision and held that the board did not abuse its discretion in refusing to reopen the deportation proceeding because petitioner received proper notice of his deportation proceeding, his exceptional circumstances argument was time-barred, and the board was not required to reopen proceedings for political asylum claims.
CONCLUSION
The court affirmed petitioner's deportation order. The court held that the immigration appeals board did not abuse its discretion in refusing to reopen order because petitioner received proper notice, exceptional circumstances argument was time-barred, and the board was not required to reopen deportation orders based on political asylum claims.
Suggested Study Aids and Books
188 F.3d 1273 (1999)
CASE SYNOPSIS
Petitioner alien appealed from a
decision from the Board of Immigration Appeals that denied his motion
to reopen his deportation order in an immigration action based on
lack of hearing notice, ineffective counsel, and a political asylum
claim.CASE FACTS
Petitioner alien entered the United States with an alien in transit visa, but he failed to depart or seek approval to stay. Petitioner did not attend his deportation hearing, and the motion to reopen his deportation proceeding was denied. Petitioner sought final review of the order and argued that the decision constituted an abuse of discretion because he lacked proper notice of deportation proceedings and his lack of notice violated due process. Petitioner also argued that his lawyer's ineffective assistance amounted to an exceptional circumstance and that he possessed a viable political asylum claim that was ignored.
DISCUSSION
The court affirmed the decision and held that the board did not abuse its discretion in refusing to reopen the deportation proceeding because petitioner received proper notice of his deportation proceeding, his exceptional circumstances argument was time-barred, and the board was not required to reopen proceedings for political asylum claims.
CONCLUSION
The court affirmed petitioner's deportation order. The court held that the immigration appeals board did not abuse its discretion in refusing to reopen order because petitioner received proper notice, exceptional circumstances argument was time-barred, and the board was not required to reopen deportation orders based on political asylum claims.
Suggested Study Aids and Books
No comments:
Post a Comment