Frank M. Castaneda, on Behalf of Mauro Gonzalez-Gonzalez v. U.S. Department of Justice Immigration and Naturalization Service

Eighth Circuit

Frank M. Castaneda, on Behalf of Mauro Gonzalez-Gonzalez v. U.S. Department of Justice Immigration and Naturalization Service

740 F.2d 9, 1984 U.S. App. LEXIS 20050

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

DecidedJuly 30, 1984

Docket84-1090

StatusPublished

Cited by10 cases

This text of 740 F.2d 9 (Frank M. Castaneda, on Behalf of Mauro Gonzalez-Gonzalez v. U.S. Department of Justice Immigration and Naturalization Service) 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.

Bluebook

Frank M. Castaneda, on Behalf of Mauro Gonzalez-Gonzalez v. U.S. Department of Justice Immigration and Naturalization Service, 740 F.2d 9, 1984 U.S. App. LEXIS 20050 (8th Cir. 1984).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1105a(a) (1982), Frank M. Castaneda filed a petition for review of an order of an associate commissioner for the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) dismissing his appeal of a decision of the district director cancelling the delivery bond posted by petitioner on behalf of Mauro Gonzalez-Gonzalez, an alien. The INS contends that this Court lacks jurisdiction to review the order. We agree.

The Immigration and Nationality Act provides for judicial review in the Courts of Appeals of “all final orders of deportation ... pursuant to administrative proceedings under section 1252(b) ____” 8 U.S.C. § 1105a(a) (1982). The Supreme Court has held that § 1105a(a) “judicial review proceedings embrace only those determinations made during a proceeding conducted under [§ 1252(b)],” Cheng Fan Kwok v. INS, 392 U.S. 206, 216, 88 S.Ct. 1970, 1976, 20 L.Ed.2d 1037 (1968), and that “orders denying discretionary relief entered outside [§ 1262(b) ] proceedings” are not subject to direct review in the Courts of Appeals. Id. at 214, 88 S.Ct. at 1975.

Bond determination proceedings are held pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a) (1982). As stated by the Seventh Circuit, a “bond determination is not a final order of deportation [and] is not made during an administrative proceeding under section 1252(b) ...." Gornicka v. INS, 681 F.2d 501, 505 (7th Cir.1982) (footnote omitted). “Furthermore, section 1252(a) provides its own mechanism for special limited review of bond ... determinations.” Id. (emphasis omitted). The Seventh Circuit concluded that “bond determinations made pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a) ... are not directly appealable to Courts of Appeals under 8 U.S.C. § 1105a.” Id. at 506. We believe that holding is equally applicable to bond breach proceedings. Cases cited by the petitioner, in fact, support our position in that the cases involve district court reviews of bond forfeiture proceedings. See Bahramizadeh v. INS, 717 F.2d 1170 (7th Cir.1983) (review of district court order granting summary judgment); International Fidelity Ins. Co. v. Crosland, 490 F.Supp. 446 (S.D.N.Y.1980) (declaratory judgment action).

Accordingly, we find we have no jurisdiction to review the order and dismiss the petition.

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

PER CURIAM.

Pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1105a(a) (1982), Frank M. Castaneda filed a petition for review of an order of an associate commissioner for the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) dismissing his appeal of a decision of the district director cancelling the delivery bond posted by petitioner on behalf of Mauro Gonzalez-Gonzalez, an alien. The INS contends that this Court lacks jurisdiction to review the order. We agree.

The Immigration and Nationality Act provides for judicial review in the Courts of Appeals of “all final orders of deportation ... pursuant to administrative proceedings under section 1252(b) ____” 8 U.S.C. § 1105a(a) (1982). The Supreme Court has held that § 1105a(a) “judicial review proceedings embrace only those determinations made during a proceeding conducted under [§ 1252(b)],” Cheng Fan Kwok v. INS, 392 U.S. 206, 216, 88 S.Ct. 1970, 1976, 20 L.Ed.2d 1037 (1968), and that “orders denying discretionary relief entered outside [§ 1262(b) ] proceedings” are not subject to direct review in the Courts of Appeals. Id. at 214, 88 S.Ct. at 1975.

Bond determination proceedings are held pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a) (1982). As stated by the Seventh Circuit, a “bond determination is not a final order of deportation [and] is not made during an administrative proceeding under section 1252(b) ...." Gornicka v. INS, 681 F.2d 501, 505 (7th Cir.1982) (footnote omitted). “Furthermore, section 1252(a) provides its own mechanism for special limited review of bond ... determinations.” Id. (emphasis omitted). The Seventh Circuit concluded that “bond determinations made pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a) ... are not directly appealable to Courts of Appeals under 8 U.S.C. § 1105a.” Id. at 506. We believe that holding is equally applicable to bond breach proceedings. Cases cited by the petitioner, in fact, support our position in that the cases involve district court reviews of bond forfeiture proceedings. See Bahramizadeh v. INS, 717 F.2d 1170 (7th Cir.1983) (review of district court order granting summary judgment); International Fidelity Ins. Co. v. Crosland, 490 F.Supp. 446 (S.D.N.Y.1980) (declaratory judgment action).

Accordingly, we find we have no jurisdiction to review the order and dismiss the petition.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

740 F.2d 9, 1984 U.S. App. LEXIS 20050, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/frank-m-castaneda-on-behalf-of-mauro-gonzalez-gonzalez-v-us-department-ca8-1984.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack