De la Cruz v. Mukasey (9th Cir. 7/9/08)

PER CURIAM Graber Tashima Timlin (dct)

The Court held that a Petition for Review did not render the Board's decision non-final, so as to toll the period for filing a timely Motion to Reopen.  Accord, Zhao Quan Chen v. Gonzales, 492 F.3d 153, 155 (2d Cir. 2007) (per curiam); Randhawa v. Gonzales, 474 F.3d 918, 922 (6th Cir. 2007); accord In re Susma, 22 I. & N. Dec. 947, 948 (B.I.A. 1999) (en banc) (per curiam).

The 3 judges on the panel all concurred specially, suggesting that this would be an appropriate case for the Board to reopen sua sponte.

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.