141 F.3d 215 (5th Cir. 1998), 97-60348, Lerma de Garcia v. I.N.S.
|Citation:||141 F.3d 215|
|Party Name:||Juana Maria LERMA DE GARCIA, Petitioner, v. IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE, Respondent.|
|Case Date:||May 11, 1998|
|Court:||United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit|
Lisa S. Brodyaga, Harlingen, TX, for Petitioner.
David Michael McConnell, Kristal A. Marlow, U.S. Dept. of Justice, Office of Immigration Litigation, Janet Reno, Civil Division, Appellate Staff, Robert L. Bombaugh, Director, Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil Division, Washington, DC, E.M. Trominski, District Director, INS, District Directors Office, Harlingen, TX, John B.Z. Caplinger, Director, INS, District Directors Office, New Orleans, LA, for Respondent.
Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals.
Before REAVLEY, JONES and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
EDITH H. JONES, Circuit Judge:
Petitioner, Juana Maria Lerma de Garcia, challenges the Board of Immigration Appeals ("BIA") final order of deportation issued on April 29, 1997. We dismiss the petition for lack of jurisdiction.
Petitioner has been a permanent resident of the United States since 1981. In 1994, petitioner pled guilty to possession of marijuana, in an amount between five to fifty pounds. Based upon this conviction, on February 17, 1994, the INS initiated deportation proceedings against Petitioner for a controlled substance violation pursuant to section 241(a)(2)(B)(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act ("INA"), 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i).
Petitioner admitted she was statutorily eligible for deportation, but applied for discretionary
relief under section 212(c), 8 U.S.C. § 1182(c). Petitioner misplaced the hearing notice, her attorney mistook the date of the hearing, and neither she nor her counsel appeared for her hearing. The Immigration Judge ("IJ") deemed Petitioner's application abandoned and ordered her deportation.
Petitioner filed a motion to reopen, in order to apply for relief under section 212(c). On December 5, 1994, the IJ denied the motion on the grounds that petitioner had failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances.
Petitioner filed a second motion to reopen, which the IJ denied on February 10, 1995. The BIA affirmed the IJ's decision on June 8, 1995. Petitioner filed a third motion to reopen, which the IJ denied on August 31, 1995. Petitioner appealed the denial to the BIA, which dismissed the appeal on February 12, 1996.
Petitioner filed a fourth motion to reopen, this time directly with...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP