Heng v. Mukasey

Ninth Circuit

Heng v. Mukasey

255 F. App'x 213

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedNovember 21, 2007

DocketNo. 04-71685

StatusPublished

This text of 255 F. App'x 213 (Heng v. Mukasey) 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

Heng v. Mukasey, 255 F. App'x 213 (9th Cir. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

**

Siak Ming Heng, a native and citizen of Indonesia, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reconsider its previous order dismissing as untimely Heng’s appeal from an Immigration Judge’s decision denying his application for asylum. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reconsider. See Oh v. Gonzales, 406 F.3d 611, 612 (9th Cir.2005). We grant the petition for review and remand.

The BIA dismissed Heng’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction before our decision in Oh v. Gonzales, 406 F.3d 611 (9th Cir.2005). We remand for the BIA to consider, in light of Oh, whether Heng demonstrated “rare circumstances” warranting consideration of his late appeal. See id. at 614 (granting and remanding where the appeal was late due to an Airborne Express error, and where the BIA’s denial was “predicated entirely on its misconstruction of the jurisdictional nature of its own filing deadline”), INS v. Ventura, 537 U.S. 12, 16, 123 S.Ct. 353, 154 L.Ed.2d 272 (2002) (per curiam).

PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED; REMANDED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

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

MEMORANDUM

**

Siak Ming Heng, a native and citizen of Indonesia, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reconsider its previous order dismissing as untimely Heng’s appeal from an Immigration Judge’s decision denying his application for asylum. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reconsider. See Oh v. Gonzales, 406 F.3d 611, 612 (9th Cir.2005). We grant the petition for review and remand.

The BIA dismissed Heng’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction before our decision in Oh v. Gonzales, 406 F.3d 611 (9th Cir.2005). We remand for the BIA to consider, in light of Oh, whether Heng demonstrated “rare circumstances” warranting consideration of his late appeal. See id. at 614 (granting and remanding where the appeal was late due to an Airborne Express error, and where the BIA’s denial was “predicated entirely on its misconstruction of the jurisdictional nature of its own filing deadline”), INS v. Ventura, 537 U.S. 12, 16, 123 S.Ct. 353, 154 L.Ed.2d 272 (2002) (per curiam).

PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED; REMANDED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

255 F. App'x 213, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/heng-v-mukasey-ca9-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack