Dinh Xuan Vu v. Gonzales

Fifth Circuit

Dinh Xuan Vu v. Gonzales

185 F. App'x 333

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedJune 14, 2006

Docket05-60557

StatusUnpublished

This text of 185 F. App'x 333 (Dinh Xuan Vu v. Gonzales) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Dinh Xuan Vu v. Gonzales, 185 F. App'x 333 (5th Cir. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM: *

Dinh Xuan Vu petitions for review of an order by the Board of Immigration Ap *334 peals (BIA), which denied his request for relief under former Immigration and Nationality Act § 212(c), former 8 U.S.C. § 1182(c). Vu argues that the immigration judge (IJ) erred when he precluded any witnesses other than Vu from testifying on Vu’s behalf and that this error violated Vu’s due process right to fundamental fairness.

This court does not have to determine whether the IJ erred because there was substantial evidence in the record before the BIA to support the BIA’s conclusion that Vu’s positive equities were outweighed by his negative attributes. See Chun v. INS, 40 F.3d 76, 78 (5th Cir.1994). Vu is not entitled to relief since he is unable to establish that any error made his hearing fundamentally unfair, might have led to the denial of justice, or caused him substantial prejudice. See Anwar v. INS, 116 F.3d 140, 144 (5th Cir.1997); Animashaun v. INS, 990 F.2d 234, 238 (5th Cir. 1993).

Vu also argues the IJ mistakenly determined that Vu’s prior § 212(c) waiver made him ineligible for a § 212(c) waiver now. The IJ did not make such a determination; he found that Vu did not deserve another opportunity to remain in the country. Accordingly, Vu’s petition for review is DENIED.

*

Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under *334 the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.

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

PER CURIAM: *

Dinh Xuan Vu petitions for review of an order by the Board of Immigration Ap *334 peals (BIA), which denied his request for relief under former Immigration and Nationality Act § 212(c), former 8 U.S.C. § 1182(c). Vu argues that the immigration judge (IJ) erred when he precluded any witnesses other than Vu from testifying on Vu’s behalf and that this error violated Vu’s due process right to fundamental fairness.

This court does not have to determine whether the IJ erred because there was substantial evidence in the record before the BIA to support the BIA’s conclusion that Vu’s positive equities were outweighed by his negative attributes. See Chun v. INS, 40 F.3d 76, 78 (5th Cir.1994). Vu is not entitled to relief since he is unable to establish that any error made his hearing fundamentally unfair, might have led to the denial of justice, or caused him substantial prejudice. See Anwar v. INS, 116 F.3d 140, 144 (5th Cir.1997); Animashaun v. INS, 990 F.2d 234, 238 (5th Cir. 1993).

Vu also argues the IJ mistakenly determined that Vu’s prior § 212(c) waiver made him ineligible for a § 212(c) waiver now. The IJ did not make such a determination; he found that Vu did not deserve another opportunity to remain in the country. Accordingly, Vu’s petition for review is DENIED.

*

Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under *334 the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

185 F. App'x 333, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dinh-xuan-vu-v-gonzales-ca5-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack