Legal Opinion · Dissent

Arie SHAAR; Helina Shaar; Shay Moshe Shaar, Petitioners, v. IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE, Respondent

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Decided April 15, 1998No. 96-70619Published

1DissentBrowning, Circuit Judge

The facts are simple. The Shaars were granted voluntary departure. During their period for voluntary departure, they became eligible for suspension of deportation and filed motions to reopen requesting such relief.1 The immigration judge had not decided the motions when the period for voluntary departure expired, and petitioners did not depart. When the motions were finally considered, they were denied on the ground that 8 U.S.C. § 1252b(e)(2)(A) bars relief to any alien who has overstayed his voluntary departure period.

I

This interpretation of Section 1252b(e)(2)(A), adopted by a bare…

2Cases cited30 opinions

  1. Mathews v. EldridgeSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
  2. Immigration & Naturalization Service v. Cardoza-FonsecaSupreme Court of the United States · 1987
  3. Evitts v. LuceySupreme Court of the United States · 1985
  4. Plyler v. DoeSupreme Court of the United States · 1982
  5. Reno v. FloresSupreme Court of the United States · 1993

25 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API