Lordes v. Mukasey (8/13/08)

Torruella, LIPEZ, Howard

Although the BIA found that Lordes missed his prior court date due to ineffective assistance of counsel, the BIA and the IJ concluded that this ineffective assistance of counsel “did not effect the respondent’s untimely filing of his asylum application”.  The First Circuit found that as no legal or constitutional defect was properly raised by Lordes, the Court of Appeals has no jurisdiction to review the BIA/IJ finding that there was no excuse for the untimely asylum filing.  The Court found that under its decision in Hana v. Gonzalez, 503 F.3d 39 (1st Cir. 2007 ), there was no merits to Lordes’s argument that the jurisdictional bar in 1158(a)(3) violates due process.  Furthermore, the First Court found that there was no past or future persecution demonstrated, meaning that Lordes was not eligible for withholding of removal.  Finally, the court held that there had been no evidence presented that Lordes would suffer harm or torture at the hand of the Brazilian government, therefore, CAT relief was also appropriately denied.

Read Opinion Here...

Comments

Add New Search

Write comment
Name:
Email:	do not notifynotify
Website:
Title:
UBBCode:	-color-aquablackbluefuchsiagraygreenlimemaroonnavyolivepurpleredsilvertealwhiteyellow -size-tinysmallmediumlargehuge
	Please input the anti-spam code that you can read in the image.

Powered by !JoomlaComment 3.12

Copyright (C) 2007 Alain Georgette / Copyright (C) 2006 Frantisek Hliva. All rights reserved.