884 F.2d 420 (9th Cir. 1989), 86-7739, Moran-Enriquez v. I.N.S.
|Docket Nº:||86-7739, 89-70010.|
|Citation:||884 F.2d 420|
|Party Name:||Santiago MORAN-ENRIQUEZ, Petitioner, v. IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE, Respondent.|
|Case Date:||August 29, 1989|
|Court:||United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit|
Argued and Submitted Aug. 18, 1989.
James McConnell Bush, Steptoe & Johnson, Phoenix, Ariz., for petitioner.
David V. Bernal, Office of Immigration Litigation, Civ. Div., Washington, D.C., for respondent.
Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals.
Before WIGGINS, KOZINSKI and RYMER, Circuit Judges.
KOZINSKI, Circuit Judge:
INS regulations require that an alien in a deportation hearing who appears to be eligible for relief from deportation be so advised by the Immigration Judge. We consider whether the record here contained enough evidence of petitioner Santiago Moran-Enriquez's eligibility for relief to trigger this requirement.
Moran was lawfully admitted to the United States for permanent residence on October 15, 1979, as an immediate relative of a United States citizen. While still on permanent resident status, he was convicted in Arizona of two crimes involving moral turpitude. 1 The INS got word of these convictions and ordered petitioner to show cause why he should not be deported. A hearing was held on September 5, 1985, before an
IJ who found petitioner deportable under section 241(a)(4) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1251(a)(4) (1982). Represented by counsel who seemed somewhat detached from the proceedings, petitioner did not apply for any relief from deportation and the IJ stated that he did not know of any relief from deportation for which petitioner might be eligible.
Moran appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals, claiming that he was eligible for relief under sections 245 and 212(h), 8 U.S.C. Secs. 1255, 1182(h) (1982), but the BIA dismissed his appeal. Petitioner then moved to reopen his case to allow him to prove his eligibility for relief; the BIA denied the motion. Moran now petitions for review of the BIA's decisions. His principal contention is that the IJ was required to, but did not, advise him of his eligibility for relief under section 212(h) of the Act.
1. Under 8 C.F.R. Sec. 242.17(a) (1988), an IJ must "inform the respondent [in a deportation hearing] of his apparent eligibility to apply for any of the benefits [of...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP