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:The petitioner entered the United States without inspection and was charged criminally with a violation of 8 U.S.C. � 1325(a)(1). Upon entry of his guilty plea, petitioner was sentenced to 30 days imprisonment, and was remanded to the custody of the attorney general. The petitioner executed a stipulated request for an order to be removed from the United States, which the immigration court approved. The petioner then filed a motion to reopen his removal proceeding, asserting that he did not voluntarily, knowingly and intelligently execute the stipulated request for removal. After a hearing, the immigration judge denied the petitioner’s motion, finding that there was no evidence to support the claim that the petitioner was not advised of his rights or had problems which would minimize his comprehension. The Board of Immigration Appeals adopted and affirmed the IJ’s decision. HOLDING:Affirmed. The petitioner argues that the IJ violated his rights pursuant to 8 U.S.C. �1229a(b)(4) by not allowing his attorney to question him, ending his testimony before he finished speaking, taking into account a sworn affidavit submitted by a deportation officer after the close of the hearing and by failing to create and preserve a record of the hearing. Title 8 U.S.C. �1229a(b)(4), however, applies to removal proceedings � not to motions to reopen. Motions to reopen are motions to reconvene removal proceedings. Motions to reopen help to serve the due process requirements associated with removal proceedings. Like �1229a(b)(4), �1229a(c)(7) applies to “proceedings under [� 1229a],” or removal proceedings. Because the hearing on the motion to reopen was not a removal proceeding, the petitioner is not entitled to the rights enumerated in 8 U.S.C. �1229a(b)(4). Moreover, neither the Immigration and Nationality Act, nor 8 C.F.R. �1003.23, the section of the regulations governing motions to reopen, provides for any of the safeguards that petitioner claims were denied. The petitioner also claims that the IJ violated his rights pursuant to the due process clause by not allowing his attorney to question him, ending his testimony before he finished speaking, taking into account a sworn affidavit submitted by a deportation officer after the close of the hearing, and by failing to create and preserve a record of the hearing. There is no liberty interest at stake in a motion to reopen, the court determines. The decision to grant or deny a motion to reopen is purely discretionary. OPINION:Per curiam; Smith, Garza and Prado, 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.