Karim v. Gonzáles, 04-2206.
| Decision Date | 22 September 2005 |
| Docket Number | No. 04-2206.,04-2206. |
| Parties | Ali Abdul KARIM, Petitioner, v. Alberto GONZÁLES, Attorney General, Respondent. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — First Circuit |
William P. Joyce and Joyce & Zerola, P.C. on brief for petitioner.
Thankful T. Vanderstar, Office of Immigration Litigation, Department of Justice, Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, Civil Division, and Linda S. Wernery, Senior Litigation Counsel, Office of Immigration Litigation, on brief for respondent.
Before BOUDIN, Chief Judge, LIPEZ and HOWARD, Circuit Judges.
Ali Abdul Karim, petitioner in this court, is a native of Lebanon. He was admitted to the United States on April 16, 1993, as a tourist authorized to stay for one month, but he did not depart or secure any change of status and remains in the United States today. In January 2003, he was called for an interview with the Department of Homeland Security ("DHS") pursuant to its "special registration" program for nationals of certain designated countries. Thereafter, the Immigration and Naturalization Service ("INS") began removal proceedings against Karim.
At the initial hearing in April 2003, Karim appeared with counsel, which he had not had at the DHS meeting, and conceded removability. At the next hearing in June 2003, his new counsel, from the same law firm, asked for a postponement so he could explore whether Karim was perhaps a citizen of Liberia, where he had lived for a time with his family.
At the deferred hearing held in July 2003, his counsel first said that he would like to file and brief a motion to suppress on the ground that the DHS interview had "tainted" the process; to this the judge replied that removability had already been conceded at the initial hearing. Counsel then asked to amend the earlier answer by denying removability, but he gave no clear basis for his motion nor any basis for establishing that Karim was not removable.
The immigration judge denied the request to amend, noting that removability had been conceded, and found that Karim was removable. The judge also denied a request for voluntary departure because Karim had no valid travel document, as his passport had expired. Karim appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals ("BIA"), arguing that he should have been given leave to amend his pleadings and more time to develop an asylum claim, that the special registration program was unconstitutional, and — as to voluntary departure — that he had no travel document because DHS had seized his passport.
In a brief per curiam order, the BIA rejected the appeal. It said that Karim had had over three months between his notice to appear in the removal proceeding and the filing of his original pleadings, which was time enough to develop his objections to removal; that he had furnished no reason for the later request to amend his admission of removability; that his passport had expired so voluntary departure was not permitted; and that the INS had no authority over the special registration program whose constitutionality was being challenged. Karim has now sought review in this court.
Much of Karim's brief on appeal is general rhetoric about the need for reasoned agency decisionmaking. In fact, it is fairly easy to follow the reasoning of both the immigration judge and the BIA. That both decisions were short is largely a result of the fact that Karim admitted removability at the outset and gave the immigration judge no good reason for allowing Karim to revisit that concession (which was made through counsel). As to voluntary departure, the main argument now pressed was not made to the immigration judge.
Turning to substance, Karim argues that the immigration judge failed to articulate and then apply the various factors that bear on whether to allow an amendment of the pleading. The obligation to explain and articulate depends importantly on the strength...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kandamar v. Gonzales
...of relief under 8 U.S.C. § 1229c. Thus, this court lacks authority to review a refusal to allow voluntary departure. Karim v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 109, 111-12 (1st Cir.2005). Petitioner seeks to circumvent this jurisdictional bar by claiming that the IJ gave him an inadequate hearing on his c......
-
Lima v. Holder
...that the concession is both binding on the noncitizen and establishes sufficient grounds for finding him removable. Karim v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 109, 111–12 (1st Cir.2005). Lima's assertion to this court that his 2009 conviction is not for a crime involving moral turpitude cannot undo the cl......
-
Karim v. Mukasey, No. 07-1981 (1st Cir. 3/13/2008)
...for voluntary departure. "[B]y statute, this court lacks authority to review a refusal to allow voluntary departure." Karim v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 109, 112 (1st Cir. 2005). Finally, the record supports the BIA's finding that there was "no evidence of improper conduct on the part of counsel [......