Lee v. I. N. S.
| Decision Date | 26 August 1982 |
| Docket Number | No. 81-7204,81-7204 |
| Citation | 685 F.2d 343 |
| Parties | Jae Myung LEE, Jung Sook Lee, Hee Jung Lee, Petitioners, v. IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE, Respondent. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
James T. Stroud, Rezac, Stroud & Suhr, Los Angeles, Cal., for petitioners.
Katherine V. Tooks, Asst. U. S. Atty., Los Angeles, Cal., for respondent.
Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals.
Before ELY, GOODWIN, and WALLACE, Circuit Judges.
The Lees petition for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) decision finding them deportable because of a fraudulent labor certification. We dismiss the petition for want of jurisdiction because the petition for review in this court was untimely filed.
The BIA's dismissal of petitioners' appeal from the Immigration Judge's deportation order was dated June 27, 1980. The Lees' petition for review in this court, filed April 3, 1981, was clearly untimely under 8 U.S.C. § 1105a(a) (1), which provides that a petition for review may be filed not later than six months from the date of the final deportation order. This requirement is mandatory and jurisdictional. See Chudschevid v. INS, 641 F.2d 780, 783-84 (9th Cir. 1981); Loza-Bedoya v. INS, 410 F.2d 343, 345-46 (9th Cir. 1969).
Petitioners contend, however, that the appeal is nevertheless timely because the BIA failed properly to serve a copy of the decision on them as required by 8 C.F.R. §§ 3.1(f), 292.5(a), and because they did not learn of the BIA's decision until March 16, 1981. The record shows, however, that the BIA mailed a copy of its decision to the address of record for petitioners' attorney and that the Post Office returned the decision indicating that the attorney had moved. Petitioners' attorney had notified the Deportation Branch of the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) of his change of address in January 1980, but he never notified the BIA of his new address.
We are satisfied that the BIA complied with the requirements of 8 C.F.R. §§ 3.1(f), 292.5(a). The notification by petitioners' attorney to the INS was insufficient to constitute notification to the BIA that his address had changed. The BIA is a quasi-judicial body independent of the INS, established by the United States Attorney General under 8 C.F.R. § 3.1 to adjudicate cases brought before it. See Mehta v. INS, 574 F.2d 701, 705 (2d Cir. 1978). Petitioners' attorney should have...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Zhang v. Slattery
...INS, see Dor v. INS, 891 F.2d 997, 1002 n. 9 (2d Cir.1989), and is "separate from and independent of" that agency. Lee v. INS, 685 F.2d 343, 344 (9th Cir.1982) (per curiam ). The agency has repeatedly been on the verge of receiving a new policy; but throughout the BIA has followed its holdi......
-
Matter of G----
...would be "on account of" that opinion), we find it to be of little, if any, persuasive authority on the present issue. See Lee v. INS, 685 F.2d 343 (9th Cir. 1982); Matter of Chang, supra, at 43; Matter of M/V Saru Meru, 20 I&N Dec. 592 (BIA 1992); Matter of Salim, 18 I&N Dec. 311, 315 (BIA......
-
Okechukwu v. US
...his attorney's neglect, deliberately bypassed his opportunity to appeal the BIA's decision to the Fifth Circuit. See, Lee v. I.N.S., 685 F.2d 343 (9th Cir.1982) (dismissing untimely appeal for counsel's failure to notify BIA of change of address); Quedraogo v. I.N.S., 864 F.2d 376 (5th Cir.......
-
Stajic v. I.N.S.
...(applying 30 day period); Nocon v. INS, 789 F.2d 1028, 1030-33 (3d Cir.1986) (applying previous six month period); Lee v. INS, 685 F.2d 343, 343 (9th Cir.1982) (same) (per curiam); Te Kuei Liu v. INS, 645 F.2d 279, 282 (5th Cir.1981) (same); Vergel v. INS, 536 F.2d 755, 757 (8th Cir.1976) (......
-
Give Me Your Tired, Your Poor, Your Particular and Socially Visible Masses: the Eighth Circuit's New Standard Governing Particular Social Group Asylum Applications After Gaitan v. Holder, 671 F.3d 678 (8th Cir. 2012)
...36. Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984). 37. Id. at 843-44. 38. Id. at 844. 39. Lee v. I.N.S., 685 F.2d 343, 344 (9th Cir. 40. See Negusie v. Holder, 555 U.S. 511, 516-17 (2009). 41. Acosta, 19 I. and N. Dec. 211, 234 (B.I.A. 1985), overruled on oth......