Matter of Holguin

• Decision Date: 19 November 1969
• Docket Number: Interim Decision Number 2013,A-19052332,A-19052331
• Citation: 13 I&N Dec. 423
• Parties: MATTER OF HOLGUIN In Deportation Proceedings
• Court: U.S. DOJ Board of Immigration Appeals

13 I&N Dec. 423

MATTER OF HOLGUIN

In Deportation Proceedings

Interim Decision Number 2013

A-19052331

A-19052332

Board of Immigration Appeals.

Decided by Board November 19, 1969

Where respondents' generalized statements of the reasons for their appeals do not indicate the aspect of the special inquiry officer's orders they consider incorrect and for what reason, their appeals in deportation proceedings from orders of the special inquiry officer granting voluntary departure, the relief requested, and the only relief for which eligible, are summarily dismissed as frivolous appeals and oral argument thereon denied by the Board of Immigration Appeals since respondents failed to clearly specify the reasons for their appeals within the meaning of 8 CFR 3.1(d)(1-a)(i), and they were granted the relief requested by the special inquiry officer (8 CFR 3.1(d)(1-a)(iii)).

CHARGE:

Order: Act of 1952—Section 241(a)(2) [8 U.S.C. 1251(a)(2)] —Nonimmigrant — remained longer (both respondents).

ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS: Manuel Lopez, Esquire, 1725 West Beverly Boulevard, Los Angeles, California 90026

Respondents, husband and wife, appeal from orders of a special inquiry officer finding them deportable and granting them voluntary departure. Their notices of appeal request oral argument before this Board. The requests for oral argument will be denied and the appeals will be summarily dismissed pursuant to 8 CFR 3.1(d)(1-a).

The facts are not in dispute. The respondents are natives and citizens of Mexico. The husband, aged 33, was last admitted to the United States on November 23, 1966. The wife, aged 28, was last admitted on December 18, 1966. Both were admitted as temporary visitors and authorized to remain until May 9, 1969. A child born to them on September 23, 1967, in Los Angeles, is a citizen of the United States.

Orders to show cause, issued on July 18, 1969, charged alienage and entry as above-stated and that respondents had remained longer than permitted. At a joint deportation hearing on August 29, 1969, at which they were represented by counsel, both respondents admitted the truth of the factual allegations of their respective orders to show cause and conceded deportability as charged. Each applied for the privilege of voluntary departure. It was brought out that both respondents had submitted applications for immigrant visas to the American Consul at Juarez, Mexico four months previously. Counsel estimated that it would be roughly two or three months before the visas would be issued.

The special inquiry officer stated that he would not be able to grant the respondents sufficient time to remain in the United States to await the visas, pointing out that any extension of the voluntary departure time he fixed would be a matter for the District Director to decide. The special inquiry officer entered separate orders granting respondents until September 19, 1969 to depart voluntarily, with alternate orders for their deportation to Mexico if they failed to depart by that date or any extended date fixed by the District Director. It is these orders which are before us on appeal.

In the space provided for a statement of the reasons for the appeal, each notice of appeal sets forth, "Decision [sic] is contrary to customary and enacted law as it relates to the operative facts in the present matter." No briefs have been filed.

Appeals to this Board from decisions of special inquiry officers in deportation cases are generally available as a matter of right. Most such appeals are submitted to the Board for adjudication on the record and briefs, if any, without request for oral argument. Under 8 CFR 3.6, execution of the special inquiry officer's order is stayed pending appeal. The availability of this respite from deportation opens the door to appeals which are purely frivolous and taken solely for purposes of delay. As we stated in Matter of Laqui, Interim Decision No. 1964 (BIA, 1969), "Delay as an end in itself, whether achieved by obstructionism or dilatory tactics, cannot in our view be considered a legitimate object."

Frivolous and dilatory appeals are extremely wasteful of the Service's and this Board's limited resources. They require needless transcription of the records of deportation hearings. They impinge upon the time and professional attention needed for truly meritorious cases, of which there are many. Effective administration of the immigration laws requires that we discourage frivolous appeals. We try to do this by expediting...