Deo Narayan v. Immigration & Naturalization Service

Ninth Circuit

Deo Narayan v. Immigration & Naturalization Service

56 F.3d 72, 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 19834, 1995 WL 314605

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedMay 22, 1995

Docket93-70842

StatusPublished

This text of 56 F.3d 72 (Deo Narayan v. Immigration & Naturalization Service) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Deo Narayan v. Immigration & Naturalization Service, 56 F.3d 72, 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 19834, 1995 WL 314605 (9th Cir. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

56 F.3d 72
NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel.

Deo NARAYAN, Petitioner,
v.
IMMIGRATION & NATURALIZATION SERVICE, Respondent.

No. 93-70842.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted April 6, 1995.
Decided May 22, 1995.

Petition to Review a Decision of the Immigration and Naturalization Service, INS No. Aqb-toy-vbr.

INS

GRANTED AND REVERSED.

Before: BRUNETTI, THOMPSON, and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges:

MEMORANDUM*

Narayan petitions for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) order denying his motion for reconsideration of an order dismissing as untimely his appeal from a judgment denying his petition for stay of deportation proceedings. The Immigration Judge (IJ) denied his stay petition on November 12, 1992. Narayan's counsel mailed his notice of appeal on November 23, 1992. Because Narayan's counsel mailed the notice, the immigration regulations gave her until November 25 for the notice to be filed with the IJ's office. 8 C.F.R. Sec. 3.38(b); see Gonzales-Julio v. INS, 34 F.3d 820, 822 n.1 (9th Cir. 1994); Vlaicu v. INS, 8 F.2d 758, 759-60 n.1 (9th Cir. 1993). The notice is marked in the administrative record as filed on November 24. Narayan's notice was thus timely filed, the BIA erred in dismissing Narayan's appeal as untimely, and the BIA abused its discretion by denying his motion for reconsideration.

Because we reverse the BIA's dismissal on the BIA's dismissal on the BIA's erroneous application of the immigration regulations, we do not reach Narayan's claim that his counsel rendered ineffective assistance by filing the notice of appeal after ten days.

We GRANT the petition for review and REVERSE the BIA's denial of reconsideration of the dismissal of Narayan's appeal.

*

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

56 F.3d 72
NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel.

Deo NARAYAN, Petitioner,
v.
IMMIGRATION & NATURALIZATION SERVICE, Respondent.

No. 93-70842.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted April 6, 1995.
Decided May 22, 1995.

Petition to Review a Decision of the Immigration and Naturalization Service, INS No. Aqb-toy-vbr.

INS

GRANTED AND REVERSED.

Before: BRUNETTI, THOMPSON, and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges:

MEMORANDUM*

Narayan petitions for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) order denying his motion for reconsideration of an order dismissing as untimely his appeal from a judgment denying his petition for stay of deportation proceedings. The Immigration Judge (IJ) denied his stay petition on November 12, 1992. Narayan's counsel mailed his notice of appeal on November 23, 1992. Because Narayan's counsel mailed the notice, the immigration regulations gave her until November 25 for the notice to be filed with the IJ's office. 8 C.F.R. Sec. 3.38(b); see Gonzales-Julio v. INS, 34 F.3d 820, 822 n.1 (9th Cir. 1994); Vlaicu v. INS, 8 F.2d 758, 759-60 n.1 (9th Cir. 1993). The notice is marked in the administrative record as filed on November 24. Narayan's notice was thus timely filed, the BIA erred in dismissing Narayan's appeal as untimely, and the BIA abused its discretion by denying his motion for reconsideration.

Because we reverse the BIA's dismissal on the BIA's dismissal on the BIA's erroneous application of the immigration regulations, we do not reach Narayan's claim that his counsel rendered ineffective assistance by filing the notice of appeal after ten days.

We GRANT the petition for review and REVERSE the BIA's denial of reconsideration of the dismissal of Narayan's appeal.

*

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

56 F.3d 72, 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 19834, 1995 WL 314605, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/deo-narayan-v-immigration-naturalization-service-ca9-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack