Guo Bing Zheng v. Gonzales

Second Circuit

Guo Bing Zheng v. Gonzales

176 F. App'x 169

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedApril 11, 2006

DocketNo. 03-4315-AG

StatusPublished

This text of 176 F. App'x 169 (Guo Bing Zheng v. Gonzales) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Guo Bing Zheng v. Gonzales, 176 F. App'x 169 (2d Cir. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

SUMMARY ORDER

Guo Bing Zheng petitions for review of the January 2003 decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) affirming an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) denial of asylum, withholding of removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the facts and procedural history of this case.

Under current law, a petition for review must be filed in the judicial circuit in which the IJ completed proceedings. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(2). This provision applies to removal proceedings commenced after April 1, 1997. See Henderson v. INS, 157 F.3d 106, 117 (2d Cir.1998). Removal proceedings were commenced against Zheng in August 1999; therefore, [170]*170the venue provision of 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(2) applies in this case.

Because it is apparent from the record that the IJ completed proceedings in this case in Atlanta, Georgia, this action is transferred to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit in the interests of justice. See 28 U.S.C. § 1631.

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

SUMMARY ORDER

Guo Bing Zheng petitions for review of the January 2003 decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) affirming an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) denial of asylum, withholding of removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the facts and procedural history of this case.

Under current law, a petition for review must be filed in the judicial circuit in which the IJ completed proceedings. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(2). This provision applies to removal proceedings commenced after April 1, 1997. See Henderson v. INS, 157 F.3d 106, 117 (2d Cir.1998). Removal proceedings were commenced against Zheng in August 1999; therefore, [170]*170the venue provision of 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(2) applies in this case.

Because it is apparent from the record that the IJ completed proceedings in this case in Atlanta, Georgia, this action is transferred to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit in the interests of justice. See 28 U.S.C. § 1631.

Franklin Henderson v. Immigration and Naturalization Service, Saul Navas v. Janet Reno, as Attorney General of the United States, Engin Yesil v. Janet Reno, Attorney General Doris Meissner, Commissioner of the Immigration and Naturalization Service Immigration and Naturalization Service John B.Z. Caplinger, District Director Nancy Hooks, Officer in Charge, Guillermo Mojica v. Janet Reno, as Attorney General of the United States, Saul Navas v. Janet Reno, as Attorney General of the United States

157 F.3d 106 (Second Circuit, 1998)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

176 F. App'x 169, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/guo-bing-zheng-v-gonzales-ca2-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack