Legal Opinion · Dissent

Arrozal v. Immigration & Naturalization Service

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Decided October 27, 1998No. 97-70068Published

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

  1. Immigration & Naturalization Service v. Rios-PinedaSupreme Court of the United States · 1985
  2. Arnel Gabriel ASTRERO, Petitioner, v. IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE, RespondentCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1996
  3. Nidia Del Rosario URBINA-OSEJO, Petitioner, v. IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE, RespondentCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1997
  4. Javier SEQUEIRA-SOLANO, Petitioner, v. IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE, RespondentCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1997
  5. Yin Fen FLORES, Petitioner, v. IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE, RespondentCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1995

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API