Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T08:25:14.299Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Abudu. 108 S.Ct. 904

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 February 2017

Monroe Leigh
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Judicial Decisions
Information
American Journal of International Law , Volume 82 , Issue 3 , July 1988 , pp. 580 - 583
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 1988

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Instead, respondent argued that his marriage to a U.S. citizen made him eligible for adjustment of status under 8 U.S.C. § 1255(a). The immigration judge denied the application for adjustment of status because respondent’s drug conviction constituted a nonwaivable ground of excludability (see 8 U.S.C. §1182(a)(23) (1982)), and the BIA affirmed this determination.

2 8 C.F.R. §3.2(1988).

3 Id. §208.11.

4 108 S.Ct. 904, 908.

5 The appellate court “did not discuss, as a separate matter, the ‘failure to explain’ ground in the BIA’s decision,” and also stated in its opinion that “the sole issue [in this case] is whether petitioner presented a prima facie case for reopening.” Id. at 910 (quoting Abudu v. INS, 802 F.2d 1096, 1100 (9th Cir. 1986) (case below)).

6 Id. at 911.

7 Abudu, 802 F.2dat 1101 (quoting Maroufi v. INS, 772 F.2d 597, 599 (9th Cir. 1985)).

8 Id.

9 108 S.Ct. at 912 (citing INS v. Jong Ha Wang, 450 U.S. 139, 144 n.5 (1981); INS v. Rios-Pineda, 471 U.S. 444, 449 (1985); INS v. Phinpathya, 464 U.S. 183, 188 n.6 (1984)).

10 Id.

11 Id. at 912–13.

12 Jong Ha Wang, 450 U.S. at 144 n.5 (quotingjudge Wallace’s dissenting opinion in Villena v. INS, 622 F.2d 1352, 1362 (9th Cir. 1980) (en banc)).

13 108 S.Ct. at 914. The INS regulations regarding motions to reopen deportation proceedings establish the procedure in the negative, i.e., “Motions to reopen in deportation proceedings shall not be granted unless . . . . “ 8 C.F.R. §3.2 (emphasis added). See also id. §242.22.

14 108 S.Ct. at 914–15.

15 5 U.S.C. §706 (1982).