At page 1374 Procedural requirements for challenging administrative decisions70 citing cases“will avoid any premature interference with the agency's processes and, in addition to affording the parties and courts the benefit of the agency's expertise, it will compile a record which is adequate for judicial review.”
- Myers v. Holder, 661 F.3d 1178 (9th Cir. 2011). See Aguilar-Escobar v. INS, 136 F.3d 1240, 1241 (9th Cir.1998) (staying the mandate until the petitioner's application before the BIA is disposed of); Alvarez-Ruiz v. INS, 749 F.2d 1314, 1316 (9th Cir.1984) (staying the mandate sixty days…
- Mathias Etchu-Njang v. John Ashcroft, No. 04-1054 (8th Cir. Apr. 8, 2005).See Goonsuwan v. Ashcroft, 252 F.3d 383, 390 (5th Cir. 2001); Bernal- Vallejo v. INS, 195 F.3d 56, 64 (1st Cir. 1999); Akinwunmi v. INS, 194 F.3d 1340, 1341 (10th Cir. 1999) (per curiam); Stewart v. INS, 181 F.3d 587, 596 (4th Cir. 1999);…
- Mathias Njang Etchu-Njang v. Alberto Gonzales, Attorney Gen. of the United States of Am., 1, 403 F.3d 577 (8th Cir. 2005).See Goonsuwan v. Ashcroft, 252 F.3d 383, 390 (5th Cir.2001); Bernal-Vallejo v. INS, 195 F.3d 56, 64 (1st Cir.1999); Akinwunmi v. INS, 194 F.3d 1340, 1341 (10th Cir.1999) (per curiam); Stewart v. INS, 181 F.3d 587, 596 (4th Cir.1999); Arang…
- Erlinda Gerardo Zara v. John Ashcroft, Attorney Gen., 383 F.3d 927 (9th Cir. 2004). If we were to hold that the BIA’s streamlining decision excused the administrative requirement of exhaustion of remedies, we would legitimize the very vice the exhaustion requirement was designed to prevent, namely, “premature interference…
- Goonsuwan v. Ashcroft, 252 F.3d 383 (5th Cir. 2001). Goonsuwan must first present his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel to the BIA, either on direct appeal or through a motion to reopen, otherwise § 106(c) precludes judicial review of the issue. 13 See Bernal-Vallejo v. INS, 195 F.3…
- Vallejo v. INS, No. 99-1211 (1st Cir. Nov. 2, 1999).(discussing exhaustion requirement where alien asserts due process claim based upon ineffective assistance)
- Bernal-Vallejo v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv., 195 F.3d 56 (1st Cir. 1999).(discussing exhaustion requirement where alien asserts due process claim based upon ineffective *64 assistance)
- Efran Pangilinan Sanga v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv., 132 F.3d 40 (9th Cir. 1997).Cf. Rogue-Carranza, 778 F.2d at 1374
- Stanislaw Opoka v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv., 94 F.3d 392 (7th Cir. 1996).See Castaneda-Suarez v. INS, 993 F.2d 142 , *396 145-46 (7th Cir.1993); Roque-Carranza v. INS, 778 F.2d 1373, 1374 (9th Cir.1985).
- Raul Aguirre-Moreno v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv., 89 F.3d 844 (9th Cir. 1996). Roque-Carranza v. INS, 778 F.2d 1373, 1374 (9th Cir.1985), quoting INS v. Wang, 450 U.S. 139 , 143 n. 5 (1981).
Show 27 more citing cases
- Hamadi Jamali Fatiha Jamali v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv., 89 F.3d 845 (9th Cir. 1996).Moreover, the Board is vested with discretion to determine when a hearing should be reopened, Roque-Carranza v. INS, 778 F.2d 1373, 1374 (9th Cir.1985), and whether to grant a stay of deportation pending its ruling on a motion to reopen. 8…
- Sasoun Avetisian v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv., 94 F.3d 650 (9th Cir. 1996).See Olivar v. INS, 967 F.2d 1381, 1383 (9th Cir.1992); Roque-Carranza v. INS, 778 F.2d 1373, 1374 (9th Cir.1985); Alvarez-Ruiz v. INS, 749 F.2d 1314, 1316 (9th Cir.1984).
- Federico Gildo Mariano-Tobias v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv., 83 F.3d 427 (9th Cir. 1996).See Rashtabadi v. INS, 23 F.3d 1562, 1567 (9th Cir.1994); Vides-Vides v. INS, 783 F.2d 1463, 1470 (9th Cir.1986); Roque-Carranza v. INS, 778 F.2d 1373, 1374 (9th Cir.1985).
- Roberto A. Esquivel-Acevedo Marisol G. Mendoza Silva De Esquivel Karla C. Esquivel-Mendoza v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv., 82 F.3d 422 (9th Cir. 1996).We deny the motion, see Berroteran-Melendez, 955 F.2d at 1255 , but stay our mandate for sixty days, to allow the motion to reopen to be considered by the BIA, see Roque-Carranza v. INS, 778 F.2d 1373, 1374 (9th Cir.1985). 2 16 PETITION FO…
- Jaime Rene Alvarez-Montiel v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv., 78 F.3d 591 (9th Cir. 1996).We deny the motion, see Berroteran-Melendez v. INS, 955 F.2d 1251, 1255 (9th Cir.1992), but stay our mandate for sixty days, see Roque-Carranza v. INS, 778 F.2d 1373, 1374 (9th Cir.1985). 1 14 PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. * The panel unanim…
- Farid Faham Gamal Ghaly v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv., 58 F.3d 1425 (9th Cir. 1995).Roque-Carranza v. INS, 778 F.2d 1373, 1374 (9th Cir.1985), citing Ramirez-Gonzalez v. INS, 695 F.2d 1208, 1213 (9th Cir.1983).
- Gert Helmut Dielmann, Also Known as Marshall Heinz v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv., 34 F.3d 851 (9th Cir. 1994).Roque-Carranza v. INS, 778 F.2d 1373, 1374 (9th Cir.1985).
- Stoyan Popov v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv., 15 F.3d 1088 (9th Cir. 1994).(we will not supersede th[e] ordinary reopening procedure by compelling the BIA to reopen the hearing)
- Jairo Arango-Aradondo v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv., 13 F.3d 610 (2d Cir. 1994). See, e.g., Castaneda-Suarez v. INS, 993 F.2d 142, 144-46 (7th Cir.1993); Dokic v. INS, 899 F.2d 530, 532 (6th Cir.1990); Roque-Carranza v. INS, 778 F.2d 1373, 1374 (9th Cir.1985).
- Mentor v. United States Immigr. & Naturalization Serv., 834 F. Supp. 133 (E.D. Pa. 1993).Ramirez-Durazo v. I.N.S., 794 F.2d 491, 600 (9th Cir.1986); Rogue-Carranza v. I.N.S., 778 F.2d 1373, 1374 (9th Cir.1985).
- Angelita Eide-Kahayon v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv., 5 F.3d 535 (9th Cir. 1993).As the court did in Roque-Carranza v. INS, 778 F.2d 1373, 1374 (9th Cir.1985), we stay the order of deportation for sixty days from the date of this disposition to allow Eide-Kahayon to pursue her motion, and if such a motion is filed with…
- Edwin Cordon-Resenos v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv., 999 F.2d 542 (9th Cir. 1993).Cordon-Resenos "must follow the INS regulations and file a motion to reopen ... with the BIA." Roque-Carranza v. INS, 778 F.2d 1373, 1374 (9th Cir.1985). 9 The petition for review is DENIED, and the decision of the BIA is AFFIRMED.
- Ayodelle Aigbevbolle v. United States Immigr. & Naturalization Serv., 996 F.2d 1223 (9th Cir. 1993). See INS v. Abudu, 485 U.S. 94, 104-05 (1988); Roque-Carranza v. INS, 778 F.2d 1373, 1374 (9th Cir.1985); 8 CFR § 3.2 .
- Georges Jacques Barou-Barukoff v. U.S. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv., 983 F.2d 1075 (9th Cir. 1993).Rogue-Carranza v. INS, 778 F.2d 1373, 1374 (9th Cir.1985). * The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument.
- Olga Paniagua-Mendieta v. U.S. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv., 972 F.2d 1341 (9th Cir. 1992).See Hurn Bu Roe v. INS, 771 F.2d 1328, 1335 (9th Cir.1985); Roque-Carranza v. INS, 778 F.2d 1373, 1374 (9th Cir.1985); Alvarez-Ruiz v. INS, 749 F.2d 1314, 1316 (9th Cir.1984). 20 AFFIRMED. * This disposition is not appropriate for publicat…
- Gerry Villanueva A.K.A. Gerry Villanueva-Dunbar v. U.S. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv., 972 F.2d 1348 (9th Cir. 1992).See Vargas v. Department of Immigration and Naturalization, 831 F.2d 906, 907-08 (9th Cir.1987); Roque-Carranza v. INS, 778 F.2d 1373, 1374 (9th Cir.1985).
- Demoz Kidane v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv., 967 F.2d 587 (9th Cir. 1992).Id. at 1374 (emphasis added).
- Mariusz Kaczmarczyk v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv., 933 F.2d 588 (7th Cir. 1991).See INS v. Abudu, 485 U.S. 94 , 108 S.Ct. 904 , 99 L.Ed.2d 90 (1988); Dokic v. INS, 899 F.2d 530, 532 (6th Cir.1990); Roque-Carranza v. INS, 778 F.2d 1373, 1374 (9th Cir.1985).
- Morales v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv., 930 F.2d 920 (9th Cir. 1991).See Magallanes-Damian v. I.N.S., 783 F.2d 931, 933 (9th Cir.1986); Roque-Carranza v. I.N.S., 778 F.2d 1373, 1374 (9th Cir.1985).
- Tameshwar Sewak v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv., 900 F.2d 667 (3d Cir. 1990).As the court said in Roque-Carranza v. INS, 778 F.2d 1373, 1374 (9th Cir.1985), a remand at this juncture “will avoid any premature interference with the agency’s processes and, in addition to affording the parties and courts the benefit o…
- Rubio-Jimenez v. U.S. Dep't of Immigr. & Naturalization, 893 F.2d 1339 (9th Cir. 1990).Roque-Carranza v. INS, 778 F.2d 1373, 1374 (9th Cir.1985).
- Rafeedie v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv., 688 F. Supp. 729 (D.D.C. 1988).(initial consideration of due process claim by agency would develop record for appeal)
- Eriberto Reyes-Palacios v. United States Immigr. & Naturalization Serv., 836 F.2d 1154 (9th Cir. 1988).Roque-Carranza v. INS, 778 F.2d 1373, 1374 (9th Cir.1985).
- Ramon Becerra-Jimenez v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv., 829 F.2d 996 (10th Cir. 1987).During oral argument, Becerra, citing Rogue-Carranza v. Immigration and Naturalization Service, 778 F.2d 1373, 1374 (9th Cir.1985), also requested that we stay our mandate and remand the matter to the BIA for such time as may be necessary…
- Nirmal Singh Dhangu v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv., 812 F.2d 455 (9th Cir. 1987).(initial consideration of due process claim by'the BIA develops an adequate record on appeal and avoids premature interference with agency processes)
- Oganesian v. Holder, 320 F. App'x 660 (9th Cir. 2009). (staying mandate to permit petitioner to file a motion to reopen before the BIA to present an ineffective assistance of counsel claim)
- Fajardo-Hernandez v. Mukasey, 279 F. App'x 587 (9th Cir. 2008).(staying mandate to permit petitioner to seek reopening in order to present ineffective assistance of counsel claim)
At page 1373 “must first submit a motion to reopen to the bia and state the new facts to be proved at the reopened hearing.”12 citing cases
- Puga v. Chertoff, 488 F.3d 812 (9th Cir. 2007)."A motion to reopen is the procedural vehicle through which a petitioner may bring, usually for the first time, an ineffective assistance of counsel claim before the BIA." Ontiveros-Lopez v. INS, 213 F.3d 1121, 1123 (9th Cir.2000); see als…
- Gama Puga v. Chertoff, 488 F.3d 812 (9th Cir. 2007).“A motion to reopen is the procedural vehicle through which a petitioner may bring, usually for the first time, an ineffective assistance of counsel claim before the BIA.” Ontiveros-Lopez v. INS, 213 F.3d 1121, 1123 (9th Cir.2000); see als…
- Fisher v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv., 79 F.3d 955 (9th Cir. 1996).Roque-Carranza v. INS, 778 F.2d 1373, 1373-74 (9th Cir.1985); cf. Rivera-Cruz v. INS, 948 F.2d 962, 967 (5th Cir.1991) (asylum applicant cannot raise new evidence on appeal from Board’s decision to contest officially noticed facts).
- 96 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 2252, 96 Daily Journal D.A.R. 3751 Saideh Fisher, AKA Saideh Hassib-Tehrani Kian Hosseini Lavasani v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv., 79 F.3d 955 (9th Cir. 1996).Roque-Carranza v. INS, 778 F.2d 1373, 1373-74 (9th Cir.1985); cf. Rivera-Cruz v. INS, 948 F.2d 962, 967 (5th Cir.1991) (asylum applicant cannot raise new evidence on appeal from Board's decision to contest officially noticed facts). 35 In…
- Luan Berisha v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv., 35 F.3d 570 (9th Cir. 1994). Rogue-Carranza v. INS, 778 F.2d 1373, 1373-74 (9th Cir.1985).
- Khosrow Gharib Rashtabadi v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv., 23 F.3d 1562 (9th Cir. 1994).Vides-Vides v. INS, 783 F.2d 1463, 1470 (9th Cir.1986) (discussing raising ineffective assistance claims before the BIA on a motion to reopen after substituting counsel); Roque-Carranza v. INS, 778 F.2d 1373, 1373-74 (9th Cir.1985) (same);…
- Francisco Murillo-Cabrera v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv., 21 F.3d 1114 (9th Cir. 1994).Vides-Vides v. INS, 783 F.2d 1463, 1470 (9th Cir.1986); Roque-Carranza v. I.N.S., 778 F.2d 1373, 1373-74 (9th Cir.1985); see 8 C.F.R.
- Felix Pedro Flores-Molina v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv., 985 F.2d 572 (9th Cir. 1993).Accordingly, we have jurisdiction. 5 Our review of the Board's decision is governed by Castillo-Villagra v. INS, which held (1) the opportunity to move to reopen the Board's decision in order to present evidence to rebut the administrative…
- Early Efrain Rodriguez-Haycerth v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv., 985 F.2d 574 (9th Cir. 1993).Accordingly, we have jurisdiction. 5 Our review of the Board's decision is governed by Castillo-Villagra v. INS, 972 F.2d 1017 (9th Cir.1992), which held (1) the opportunity to move to reopen the Board's decision in order to present eviden…
- Marvin Antonio Aragon-Aviles v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv., 985 F.2d 571 (9th Cir. 1993).Accordingly, we have jurisdiction. 5 Our review of the Board's decision is governed by Castillo-Villagra v. INS, which held (1) the opportunity to move to reopen the Board's decision in order to present evidence to rebut the administrative…
Show 2 more citing cases
- Eddie Sevilla-Rios v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv., 985 F.2d 574 (9th Cir. 1993).On October 22, 1990 a timely petition for review was filed. 8 U.S.C. § 1105a(a)(1) (Prior to January 1, 1991 the limitations period for filing petitions for review was six months; for petitions filed thereafter the limitations period is 90…
- Oscar Ricardo Zayas-Marini v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv., 785 F.2d 801 (9th Cir. 1986).Roque-Carranza v. INS, 778 F.2d 1373, 1373-74 (9th Cir.1985).
v.
IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE, Respondent
Petitioner Gerardo Antonio Roque-Carranza is a native of El Salvador who entered the United States without inspection. At his deportation proceedings, petitioner was represented by a non-attorney certified representative. On July 20, 1982, following a hearing, the Immigration Judge (IJ) denied petitioner’s application for asylum (8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)) and withholding of deportation (8 U.S.C. § 1253(h)). Petitioner’s representative appealed the decision to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), and the BIA eventually dismissed the appeal for failure to specify grounds. Petitioner’s representative had not filed a brief or requested oral argument.
On appeal to this court, petitioner argues that he was denied a full and fair hearing due to the ineffective assistance of his counsel below. To support this claim, petitioner proffers new evidence which he believes his representative should have discovered and presented at the hearing. This evidence, petitioner argues, would prove at least a well-founded fear of persecution.
INS regulations set out a mechanism for the reopening or reconsideration of deportation hearings. The petitioner must submit a motion to reopen to the BIA and state the new facts to be proved at the reopened[*1374] hearing. 8 C.F.R. § 3.8(a) (1985). The BIA is vested with the discretion to determine when a hearing should be reopened, INS v. Wang, 450 U.S. 139, 143 n. 5, 101 S.Ct. 1027, 1030 n. 5, 67 L.Ed.2d 123 (1981), based upon its evaluation of whether the evidence sought to be introduced is material and was previously unavailable. 8 C.F.R. § 3.2 (1985). We have held that in circumstances such as at bar we will not supersede this ordinary reopening procedure by compelling the BIA to reopen the hearing. Ramirez-Gonzalez v. INS, 695 F.2d 1208, 1213 (9th Cir.1983). Thus, the petitioner must follow the INS regulations and file a motion to reopen or for reconsideration with the BIA.
In assessing petitioner’s due process claim, we must take these procedures for reopening into account.
“Only if we could say in advance of resort to the statutory procedure that it is incapable of affording due process to petitioned ] could we conclude that [he has] shown any legal excuse for [his] failure to resort to it or that [his] constitutional rights have been or will be infringed.”
Bakersfield City School District v. Boyer, 610 F.2d 621, 626 (9th Cir.1979) (quoting Yakus v. United States, 321 U.S. 414, 434-435, 64 S.Ct. 660, 672, 88 L.Ed. 834 (1944)); see also Rodrigues v. Donovan, 769 F.2d 1344, 1349 (9th Cir.1985). If the additional evidence petitioner seeks to present is material, he may obtain review of it by presenting it in a motion to reopen, citing his counsel’s incompetence and abandonment of his case as the reason the new evidence “was not available and could not have been discovered or presented at the former hearing____” 8 C.F.R. § 3.2 (1985). This procedure will avoid any premature interference with the agency’s processes and, in addition to affording the parties and courts the benefit of the agency’s expertise, it will compile a record which is adequate for judicial review. Rodrigues, 769 F.2d at 1349 (citing Weinberger v. Salfi, 422 U.S. 749, 765, 95 S.Ct. 2457, 2466, 45 L.Ed.2d 522 (1975)).
If his motion to reopen is denied, petitioner may challenge in this court the BIA’s decision as violative of due process through a petition to review the BIA’s refusal to reopen. See Chadha v. INS, 634 F.2d 408, 412-15 (9th Cir.1980), aff'd, 462 U.S. 919, 937-39, 103 S.Ct. 2764, 2777-78, 77 L.Ed.2d 317 (1983). At such a time, this court would be able to consider de novo, Lord Jim’s v. NLRB, 772 F.2d 1446, 1448 (9th Cir.1985), and on a full record “the risk of an erroneous deprivation . . . through the procedures used, and the probable value, if any, of additional or substitute procedural safeguards . . . .” Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 335, 96 S.Ct. 893, 903, 47 L.Ed.2d 18 (1976).
Accordingly, the petition for review is DENIED and the decision of the BIA is AFFIRMED. The order of deportation shall be stayed for sixty days from the filing of this opinion, to allow time for petitioner to file a motion to reopen and, if a motion to reopen is filed with the BIA, for such further time as is necessary for the disposition of the motion by the BIA. See Alvarez-Ruiz v. INS, 749 F.2d 1314, 1316 (9th Cir.1984) (as amended) (per curiam).