Johnson v. Gonzales

Second Circuit

Johnson v. Gonzales

218 F. App'x 40

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedFebruary 26, 2007

DocketNo. 05-4166-ag

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 218 F. App'x 40 (Johnson 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

Johnson v. Gonzales, 218 F. App'x 40 (2d Cir. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

SUMMARY ORDER

Petitioner Norma Cristina Drummond De Johnson, a native and citizen of Panama, seeks review of a July 5, 2005, order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) denying petitioner’s request to reopen her case to move for relief pursuant to former Section 212(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1182(c) (repealed 1996). In re Norma Cristina Drummond, De Johnson, A35 197 805 (B.I.A. July 5, 2005). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the facts, proceedings below, and specification of issues. We hold as follows.

While Johnson’s petition was pending, this court clarified in Wilson v. Gonzales, 471 F.3d 111 (2d Cir.2006), that applicants who claim that they “delayed filing an affirmative § 212(c) application to build a stronger case warranting the granting of that relief, believing such reliance will continue to be available, ... must make an individualized showing of reliance.” Id. at 122. Johnson did not have the benefit of this decision when she filed her motion to reopen. We therefore grant Johnson’s petition and remand her case to the BIA to [41]*41determine whether she can make the requisite showing of individualized reliance.

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

SUMMARY ORDER

Petitioner Norma Cristina Drummond De Johnson, a native and citizen of Panama, seeks review of a July 5, 2005, order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) denying petitioner’s request to reopen her case to move for relief pursuant to former Section 212(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1182(c) (repealed 1996). In re Norma Cristina Drummond, De Johnson, A35 197 805 (B.I.A. July 5, 2005). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the facts, proceedings below, and specification of issues. We hold as follows.

While Johnson’s petition was pending, this court clarified in Wilson v. Gonzales, 471 F.3d 111 (2d Cir.2006), that applicants who claim that they “delayed filing an affirmative § 212(c) application to build a stronger case warranting the granting of that relief, believing such reliance will continue to be available, ... must make an individualized showing of reliance.” Id. at 122. Johnson did not have the benefit of this decision when she filed her motion to reopen. We therefore grant Johnson’s petition and remand her case to the BIA to [41]*41determine whether she can make the requisite showing of individualized reliance.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

218 F. App'x 40, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/johnson-v-gonzales-ca2-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack