green
Positive treatment
24.7 score
Treatment trajectory · 1989 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1989
2007
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 38 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Nnaemeka v. Ashcroft
Haroutunian v. INS, 87 F.3d 374, 375 (9th Cir.1996); Lee v. INS, 685 F.2d 343, 343 (9th Cir.1982).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Gaur v. Atty Gen USA
Singh, 315 F.3d at 1190 (citing Lee v. Immigration & Naturalization Serv., 685 F.2d 343, 344 (9th Cir.1982) (per curiam)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Valdez-Salazar v. Immigration & Naturalization Service
The BIA properly denied Valdez-Salazar’s motions to reopen as untimely, see 8 C.F.R. § 3.2 (c)(2), because the record indicates that the BIA mailed its decision to Valdez-Salazar’s address of record, see Lee v. INS, 685 F.2d 343, 344 (9th Cir. 1982) (finding the BIA had complied with the requirements of 8 C.F.R. § 3.1 (f) by mailing a copy of its'decision to the petitioner’s address of record).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Samuel Martinez-Serrano v. Immigration and Naturalization Service
Id. “[T]ime for filing a review petition begins to run when the BIA complies with the terms of federal regulations by mailing its decision to petitioner’s [or his counsel’s] address of record.” Id. (quoting Ouedroago, 864 F.2d at 378 and Lee v. INS, 685 F.2d 343, 344 (9th Cir.1982)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Jose Maria Jimenez-Solorzano v. Immigration and Naturalization Service
Therefore, to be entitled to consideration of the merits of his petition for review, he had to file it not later than 30 days after the date of issuance of his final deportation order. 8 U.S.C. § 1105a(a)(1); Lee v. INS, 685 F.2d 343, 343 (9th Cir.1982).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Samuel Ndubuisi Nyenke v. Immigration and Naturalization Service
Lee v. INS, 685 F.2d 343, 343 (9th Cir. 1982).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Xin-Chang Zhang v. Slattery
Lee v. INS, 685 F.2d 343, 344 (9th Cir.1982) (per curiam).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Zhang v. Slattery
Lee v. INS, 685 F.2d 343, 344 (9th Cir.1982) (per curiam ).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Miguel Alonso Contreras-Canche v. Immigration & Naturalization Service
Lee v. INS, 685 F.2d 343, 343 (9th Cir.1982).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Nicolae Bonca v. Immigration and Naturalization Service
See Karimian-Kaklaki v. INS, 997 F.2d 108, 111 (5th Cir.1993); Quedraogo v. INS, 864 F.2d 376, 378 (5th Cir.1989); Lee v. INS, 685 F.2d 343, 344 (9th Cir.1982) (per curiam).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Everton Gladstone Watson v. Immigration and Naturalization Service
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
Lee v. INS, 685 F.2d 343, 343 (9th Cir.1982).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Pupi White v. Immigration and Naturalization Service
The timeliness requirement set forth in the INA is “mandatory and jurisdictional.” Lee v. INS, 685 F.2d 343, 343 (9th Cir.1982) (per curiam).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Lewis Wallaceford Kerr v. U.S. Immigration & Naturalization Service
Lee v. INS, 685 F.2d 343, 343 (9th Cir. 1982); see also Stajic v. INS, 961 F.2d 403, 404 (2d Cir. 1992) (statutory provision dictating the filing period for a petition for review is jurisdictional and nondiscretionary). 3 In conclusion, we dismiss the petition for review for lack of jurisdiction.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Mouawad S.B. Guirguis v. Immigration and Naturalization Service
The time limit for filing a petition for review of a final order of deportation is “mandatory and jurisdictional.” Lee v. INS, 685 F.2d 343, 343 (9th Cir.1982) (per curiam).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Francisco Javier Echeverri-Perez v. U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service
In the case at bar, the actions of Echeverri-Perez himself appear to have caused the lack of notice: he gave the Tampa Avenue address as his address of record in an INS interview while in prison; he signed the Order to Show Cause, waiving his rights to "more extended notice" and acknowledging his awareness of the significance of the deportation hearing; and he moved from Northridge to Anaheim without complying with INS regulations regarding change of address, despite the fact that he was in the midst of deportation proceedings. 16 Where lack of notice is due to the error of the petitioner and …
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Herminio Agkis Mata v. United States Immigration and Naturalization Service
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
This filing deadline is "mandatory and jurisdictional." Lee v. INS, 685 F.2d 343, 343 (9th Cir.1982) (per curiam). 4 Here, Mata's final order of deportation was issued by the BIA on May 19, 1992.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Muhammad Younus v. Immigration & Naturalization Service
(2×)
Lee, 685 F.2d at 343; see Saadi v. INS, 912 F.2d 428, 428 (10th Cir.1990); Romero-Carmona, 725 F.2d at 105-06 .
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Veljko Stajic, Also Known as William Mocus v. Immigration and Naturalization Service
See, e.g., Pimental-Romero v. INS, 952 F.2d 564, 564 (1st Cir.1991) (applying 30 day period); Nocon v. INS, 789 F.2d 1028, 1030-33 (3d Cir.1986) (applying previous six month period); Lee v. INS, 685 F.2d 343, 343 (9th Cir.1982) (same) (per curiam); Te Kuei Liu v. INS, 645 F.2d 279, 282 (5th Cir.1981) (same); Vergel v. INS, 536 F.2d 755, 757 (8th Cir.1976) (same); cf. Fallen v. United States, 378 U.S. 139, 142 , 84 S.Ct. 1689, 1691 , 12 L.Ed.2d 760 (1964) (“[T]he timely filing of a notice of appeal is a jurisdictional prerequisite to the hearing of the appeal” pursuant to Fed.R.Crim.P. 37(a…
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Mouawad S.B. GUIRGUIS v. IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE
The time limit for filing a petition for review of a final order of deportation is "mandatory and jurisdictional." Lee v. INS, 685 F.2d 343, 343 (9th Cir.1982) (per curiam).
cited
Cited "see"
Juan Banuelos v. Eric Holder, Jr.
See Lee v. INS, 685 F.2d 343, 343-44 (9th Cir.1982) (per curiam) (dismissing for lack of jurisdiction because petition was untimely filed).
discussed
Cited "see"
Lim v. Holder
See Lee v. INS, 685 F.2d 343, 344 (9th Cir.1982) (per curiam) (notification to the Immigration and Naturalization Service (“INS”) did not constitute notification of an address change to the BIA because BIA is a quasi-judicial body separate and independent of the INS).
discussed
Cited "see"
Hatami-Miri v. Ashcroft
See Lee v. INS, 685 F.2d 343 (9th Cir.1982) (dismissing a petition for review from the BIA as untimely where petitioners did not receive timely notice of the BIA’s decision because their attorney filed a change of address with the INS rather than the BIA).
cited
Cited "see"
Behrooz Hafezi-Haghani v. Immigration and Naturalization Service
See Lee, 685 F.2d at 344 . 7 DISMISSED. * The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument.
cited
Cited "see"
Mastag Garabed Haroutunian, AKA Ohannes Sassonian AKA Matsak Haroutunian AKA Matsag Haroutunian v. Immigration and Naturalization Service
See Lee v. INS, 685 F.2d 343 (9th Cir.1982).
discussed
Cited "see"
Roberto Angel Gonzalez-Ayala v. Immigration and Naturalization Service
See Lee v. INS, 685 F.2d 343, 343 (9th Cir.1982) (holding that the requirement that a petition appealing an IJ's deportation order be filed within six months from the date of the order is mandatory and jurisdictional). 17 Petition for review DENIED. * The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument.
discussed
Cited "see"
Enrique Rafael Alberto Zaluski v. Immigration and Naturalization Service
(2×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
See Lee v. Immigration and Naturalization Service, 685 F.2d 343 (9th Cir.1982) (petition for review, filed beyond statutory time limit, rejected where timely notice of decision not received because lawyer had moved without notifying BIA).
cited
Cited "see"
Americo Felix Echevarria-Granza v. Immigration & Naturalization Service
See Lee v. INS, 685 F.2d 343, 344 (9th Cir.1982); Patel v. INS, 803 F.2d 804, 806 (5th Cir.1986).
cited
Cited "see"
Kevin Roy McKenzie v. Immigration and Naturalization Service
See Lee v. INS, 685 F.2d 343, 343 (9th Cir.1982) (The requirements of 8 U.S.C.
discussed
Cited "see"
G
See Lee v. INS, 685 F.2d 343 (9th Cir. 1982); Matter of Chang, supra, at 43; Matter of M/V Saru Meru, 20 I&N Dec. 592 (BIA 1992); Matter of Salim, 18 I&N Dec. 311, 315 (BIA 1982); Matter of Cavazos, 17 I&N Dec. 215 (BIA 1980).
discussed
Cited "see"
Okechukwu v. United States
See, Lee v. I.N.S., 685 F.2d 343 (9th Cir.1982) (dismissing untimely appeal for counsel’s failure to notify BIA of change of address); Quedraogo v. I.N.S., 864 F.2d 376 (5th Cir.1989) (declining to dismiss appeal as untimely where unable to discern when BIA mailed its decision to alien).
cited
Cited "see"
Francisco Miramontes-Torres v. United States Immigration and Naturalization Service
See Lee v. INS, 685 F.2d at 343, 344 (9th Cir.1982) (responsibility of providing the BIA with a correct and current address lies with the petitioner and petitioner's counsel).
cited
Cited "see"
Ely Dany Mizrahy v. U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service
See Lee v. INS, 685 F.2d 343, 344 (9th Cir.1982) (change of address); Cordon De Ruano v. INS, 554 F.2d 944, 947 (9th Cir.1977) (timely brief).
cited
Cited "see"
Sam Baba Ouedraogo v. Immigration and Naturalization Service
See Lee v. Immigration & Naturalization Service, 685 F.2d 343 (9th Cir.1982).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Limenew v. Immigration & Naturalization Service
See, e.g., Lee v. INS, 685 F.2d 343 (9th Cir.1982).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Mulugeta Gebremichael Woubie Mekonnen Belene Mulgeta v. Immigration and Naturalization Service
See Sequeira-Solano v. INS, 104 F.3d 278, 279 (9th Cir.1997) (stating that it is the alien's responsibility to inform of a change of address); see also Lee v. INS, 685 F.2d 343, 344 (9th Cir.1992) (stating that notification to the INS of change of address does not constitute notice to the BIA). 7 PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. * The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Virginia Gaila Millare, AKA Virginia Ganado Gaila AKA Virginia P. Parcasio v. Immigration and Naturalization Service
Compare Ouedraogo v. I.N.S., 864 F.2d 376, 378 (5th Cir.1989) (appeal timely where no evidence in the record that the BIA's decision had been mailed), with Lee v. I.N.S., 685 F.2d 343, 344 (9th Cir.1982) (appeal untimely where record showed that the BIA mailed a copy to the address of record for the petitioners' attorney, and that the Post Office had returned the mail as undeliverable). 17 The denial of Millare's motion to reopen due to her failure to voluntarily depart in accordance with an order that Millare never received, for which there is no evidence that the BIA mailed to her or her att…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Jae Myung LEE, Jung Sook Lee, Hee Jung Lee, Petitioners,
v.
IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE, Respondent
v.
IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE, Respondent
81-7204.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Aug 26, 1982.
James T. Stroud, Rezae, Stroud & Suhr, Los Angeles, Cal., for petitioners., Katherine V. Tooks, Asst. U. S. Atty., Los Angeles, Cal., for respondent.
Ely, Goodwin, Per Curiam, Wallace.
Cited by 41 opinions | Published
PER CURIAM:
The Lees petition for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) decision finding them deportable because of a fraudulent labor certification. We dismiss the petition for want of jurisdiction because the petition for review in this court was untimely filed.
The BIA’s dismissal of petitioners’ appeal from the Immigration Judge’s deportation order was dated June 27, 1980. The Lees’ petition for review in this court, filed April 3, 1981, was clearly untimely under 8 U.S.C. § 1105a(a)(l), which provides that a petition for review may be filed not later than six months from the date of the final deportation order. This requirement is mandatory and jurisdictional. See Chudschevid v. INS, 641 F.2d 780, 783-84 (9th Cir. 1981); Loza-Bedoya v. INS, 410 F.2d 343, 345-46 (9th Cir. 1969).
Petitioners contend, however, that the appeal is nevertheless timely because the BIA failed properly to serve a copy of the decision on them as required by 8 C.F.R. §§ 3.1(f), 292.5(a), and because they did not[*344] learn of the BIA’s decision until March 16, 1981. The record shows, however, that the BIA mailed a copy of its decision to the address of record for petitioners’ attorney and that the Post Office returned the decision indicating that the attorney had moved. Petitioners’ attorney had notified the Deportation Branch of the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) of his change of address in January 1980, but he never notified the BIA of his new address.
We are satisfied that the BIA complied with the requirements of 8 C.F.R. §§ 3.1(f), 292.5(a). The notification by petitioners’ attorney to the INS was insufficient to constitute notification to the. BIA that his address had changed. The BIA is a quasi-judicial body independent of the INS, established by the United States Attorney General under 8 C.F.R. § 3.1 to adjudicate cases brought before it. See Mehta v. INS, 574 F.2d 701, 705 (2d Cir. 1978). Petitioners’ attorney should have undertaken the minimal effort necessary to notify the BIA, a tribunal separate from and independent of the INS, petitioners’ adversary in this case, of his correct address.
The petition for review is hereby dismissed for want of jurisdiction.