Case Resources
Search this Case
in Google Scholar
on the Web
Google Web Search
MSN Web Search
Yahoo! Web Search
in the News
Google News Search
Google News Archive Search
Yahoo! News Search
in the Blogs
BlawgSearch.com Search
Google Blog Search
Technorati Blog Search
in other Databases
Google Book Search
Justia Research Resources
Justia.com
Supreme Court Center
US Regulation Tracker
US District Court Opinions
Federal District Court Civil Case Filings
Legal Blog Search
Legal Podcast Search
USA Constitution Annotated
Online Research Resources
Cornell LII
Cornell Wex Dictionary & Encyclopedia
LLRX.com - Legal Research
Expert Witness Directory
Nolo Consumer & Business
US Court Forms
WashLaw Directory
World LII
Cases Provided By
Creative Commons
public.resource.org
Notice: First Circuit Local Rule 36.2(b)6 States Unpublished Opinions May Be Cited Only in Related Cases.anthony Dale Clarke, Petitioner, v. Immigration and Naturalization Service, Respondent
United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit. - 50 F.3d 1
Mar. 30, 1995
Herbert P. Sklar on brief for petitioner.
Frank W. Hunger, Assistant Attorney General, Robert Kendall, Jr., Assistant Director, and Alexander H. Shaprio, Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, on brief for respondent.
B.I.A.
REVIEWED DENIED.
Before TORRUELLA, Chief Judge, BOUDIN and STAHL, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
All that is before this court for review is the board's October 19, 1994 order denying petitioner's perfunctory September 1994 motion to reopen. We review for abuse of discretion. INS v. Doherty, 112 S. Ct. 719, 724-25 (1992); Gando-Coello v. INS, 888 F.2d 197, 199 (1st Cir. 1989).
Petitioner's motion to reopen did not comply with the requirements for reopening. 8 C.F.R. Secs. 3.2, 3.8. To the extent petitioner was attempting to revive his abandoned application for discretionary relief, petitioner did not adequately explain why he and his attorney had not appeared for the February 20, 1991 hearing and therefore did not show why he should be given another chance to apply for discretionary relief. 8 C.F.R. Sec. 3.2. To the extent petitioner wanted to present new evidence, he failed timely to comply with Sec. 3.8's requirement to "state the new facts to be proved at the reopened hearing" and file supporting affidavits or other evidentiary material. The board was entitled to enforce its procedural requirements and hence did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioner's motion to reopen.
The petition for judicial review is summarily denied. Loc. R. 27.1.