JAE MYUNG LEE, JUNG SOOK LEE, HEE JUNG LEE, PETITIONERS,
v.
IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE, RESPONDENT
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that a petition for review was untimely filed and therefore dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
Petitioners sought review of a BIA decision finding them deportable. Their petition for review was filed over nine months after the BIA decision date.…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Timeliness Of Filing cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
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)(l), 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 undertaken the minimal effort necessary to notify the BIA, a tribunal separate from and independent of the INS, petitioners’ adversary in this case, of his correct address.
The petition for review is hereby dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Ruddys Angel Pimental-Romero v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv., 952 F.2d 564 (1st Cir. 1991)
-
Veljko Stajic v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv., 961 F.2d 403 (2d Cir. 1992)
-
Ouedraogo v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv., 864 F.2d 376 (5th Cir. 1989)
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Eugenio Loza-Bedoya v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv., 410 F.2d 343 (9th Cir. 1969)
- Ram Chudshevid v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv., 641 F.2d 780 (9th Cir. 1981)
- Madhukant Jinabhai Mehta v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv., 574 F.2d 701 (2d Cir. 1978)