Opinion of the Court — Solorzano-Ahumada v. Immigration & Naturalization Service

This writing

Type: Opinion of the Court
Filed: May 15, 2002
Case: Solorzano-Ahumada v. Immigration & Naturalization Service
Case status: Decided

Source No authoring judge could be established for this writing, either from provider metadata or from the signature line of the court's published opinion. Benchlight shows the gap rather than guessing at an author.

Opening text

The first passage of the document, as extracted by the source provider.

MEMORANDUM *** Jose Solorzano-Ahumada (“Solorzano-Ahumada”) petitions for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) affirming the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of his motion to reopen deportation proceedings. The IJ entered an order of deportation in absentia when So-lorzano-Ahumada failed to appear for his scheduled deportation hearing. Solorza-no-Ahumada contends that the order was an abuse of discretion because he did not receive notice of the hearing as required by § 242B of the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”), 8 U.S.C. § 1252b(a)(2) (1995). 1 We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1105a (1995). Our review is for abuse of discretion. Garcia v. INS, 222 F.3d 1208, 1209 (9th Cir.2000). We will not disturb the BIA’s ruling unless it has acted “arbitrarily, irrationally, or contrary to law.” Eide-Ka-hayon v. INS, 86 F.3d 147 , 149 (9th Cir. 1996) (citations and internal quotations omitted). We review de novo the BIA’s determination of purely legal questions. Singh v. INS, 213 F.3d at 1052. Solorzano-Ahumada contends that he lived at the same address for three years. However, he offers no proof that he ever provided his correct address to the INS or…

Source Extract supplied by CourtListener. Benchlight does not host the document — read the authoritative text in the court's own PDF.