X

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Click here for the full text of this decision FACTS:Petitioner Hameed Ali seeks review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirming, without opinion, the immigration judge’s denial of the petitioner’s motion to terminate proceedings. Ali is a native and citizen of Pakistan. He was admitted to the United States in Dallas on Sept. 1, 2000, as a nonimmigrant visitor for a period not to exceed six months. In April 2001, he allegedly filed a labor certification, which is currently pending. The immigration judge, however, noted that there was no record of this filing and, therefore, did not find it sufficient to warrant a continuance of Ali’s deportation proceeding. On March 11, 2003, the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) personally served Ali with a notice to appear, charging that he was deportable under the INA as an alien who remained in the United States for a longer time period than permitted. See 8 U.S.C. � 1227(a)(1)(B). At the hearing, Ali admitted that he was removable as charged. However, he argued that the notice to appear was defective and, therefore, the proceeding should be terminated. The notice that was filed with the immigration court was signed by Robert Haldeman, acting assistant district director for investigations (ADDI), a Department of Homeland Security (DHS) official who was authorized to issue a notice to appear. The copy that was served upon Ali, however, was signed on behalf of Haldeman by Special Agent David Brown, who is not authorized to issue the notice. The notice, identical to the one given to Ali, was then signed by Haldeman and filed with the immigration court. The immigration court gave Ali a copy of the second notice. DHS filed an affidavit prepared by Tina Tucker, an ADDI, who detailed INA procedures for issuing notices to appear. She stated that when a DHS special agent under the supervision of an ADDI issues a notice to appear to an alien, he must first attempt to make contact with the ADDI to obtain the ADDI’s signature on the notice (either in person or by telephone). If the ADDI is unavailable, the special agent gives the alien copy of the notice without the ADDI’s signature or a copy that he has signed for the ADDI. Either way, the ADDI’s name is typewritten under the signature line of the notice on the copy given to the alien. A copy is then given to the ADDI, who signs it, and then filed with the immigration court. HOLDING:Denied. 8 C.F.R. �1239.1(a) provides that, “Every removal proceeding conducted under section 240 of the Act (8 U.S.C. �1229a) to determine the deportability or inadmissibility of an alien is commenced by the filing of a notice to appear with the immigration court.” 8 C.F.R. �239.1 then details which officers are authorized to “issue” the notice to appear. Included on the list are district directors. 8 C.F.R. �239.1(a)(1). The petitioner argues that the term “issue” is synonymous with “sign” and, therefore, a notice that is not signed directly by a listed officer is not valid. However, the INS interprets this regulation to permit special agents to sign the name of the issuing official, provided that the official specifically approves the issuance and authorizes the affixing of his signature on the notices. In Diaz-Soto v. INS, 797 F.2d 262 (5th Cir. 1986), the court noted that “issue” is not the equivalent of “sign,” finding that “issue” is more akin to “authorize” than to the mechanics of signature-affixing. Therefore, the agency’s interpretation of its regulation, providing for the special agent to initially sign the notice so long as he later obtains approval from an authorized official, comports with the language of the regulation. Ali’s notice then did not violate 8 C.F.R. �239.1, and the immigration court properly denied Ali’s request to terminate his removal proceeding. Because Ali concedes deportability, he has not shown that any prejudice resulted from the ADDI’s failure to personally sign the notice to appear. Therefore, there is no due process violation. OPINION:Clement, J.; Barksdale, Stewart and Clement, JJ.

Want to continue reading?
Become a Free ALM Digital Reader.

Benefits of a Digital Membership:

  • Free access to 1 article* every 30 days
  • Access to the entire ALM network of websites
  • Unlimited access to the ALM suite of newsletters
  • Build custom alerts on any search topic of your choosing
  • Search by a wide range of topics

*May exclude premium content
Already have an account?

 
 

ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2021 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.