Arrozal v. Immigration & Naturalization Service
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
1DissentBrunetti, Circuit Judge
Because the majority’s opinion is neither consistent with the sound policies of this country’s immigration laws nor in accord with recent acts of Congress, I respectfully dissent.
The BIA denied Yehdego’s motion to reopen “as a matter of discretion without further addressing her statutory eligibility for suspension of deportation.” The BIA stated that “under the circumstances of this case ..., we do not find [Yehdego] has met her burden of demonstrating that she warrants a favorable exercise of discretion under our decision in Matter ofBarocio. ...”
The “circumstances of this case” are as…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Immigration & Naturalization Service v. Rios-PinedaSupreme Court of the United States · 1985
- Arnel Gabriel ASTRERO, Petitioner, v. IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE, RespondentCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1996
- Nidia Del Rosario URBINA-OSEJO, Petitioner, v. IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE, RespondentCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1997
- Javier SEQUEIRA-SOLANO, Petitioner, v. IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE, RespondentCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1997
- Yin Fen FLORES, Petitioner, v. IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE, RespondentCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1995