Candida Rosa Euceda v. INS
This text of Candida Rosa Euceda v. INS (Candida Rosa Euceda v. INS) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT ___________
No. 99-2941 ___________
Candida Rosa Euceda, * * Petitioner, * * Petition for Review of an v. * Order of the Immigration * and Naturalization Service. Immigration and Naturalization * [UNPUBLISHED] Service; U.S. Department of Justice, * * Respondents. * ___________
Submitted: July 5, 2000 Filed: July 11, 2000 ___________
Before LOKEN, FAGG, and HANSEN, Circuit Judges. ___________
PER CURIAM.
Candida Rosa Euceda, a Honduran citizen, petitions for review of a final order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing as untimely her appeal from the Immigration Judge’s (IJ) denial of her applications for asylum and withholding of deportation. For reversal she addresses only the merits of the IJ’s decision. For the reasons discussed below, we deny the petition for review.
The record reveals that the IJ issued an oral decision on April 3, 1997, after a hearing, and that on May 8 the BIA received Euceda’s Form EOIR-26 Notice of Appeal, three days after the filing deadline had passed. We conclude the BIA properly dismissed the appeal as untimely. See Atiqullah v. INS, 39 F.3d 896, 898 (8th Cir. 1994) (per curiam) (absent unique circumstances, time limit for filing notice of appeal with BIA is mandatory and confers on BIA jurisdiction to hear appeal); 8 C.F.R. § 3.38(b), (c) (2000) (notice of appeal from IJ’s decision (Form EOIR-26) shall be filed directly with BIA within 30 calendar days after stating of IJ’s oral decision; if final date for filing falls on Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday, appeal time extends to next business day; date of filing is date BIA receives notice). We may not review the merits of Euceda’s claims because they were not presented to the BIA. See Margalli-Olvera v. INS, 43 F.3d 345, 350 (8th Cir. 1994).
Accordingly, we deny the petition for review.
A true copy.
Attest:
CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
-2-
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Candida Rosa Euceda v. INS, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/candida-rosa-euceda-v-ins-ca8-2000.