Kai Ki Kon v. Alberto Gonzales, Attorney General

Ninth Circuit

Kai Ki Kon v. Alberto Gonzales, Attorney General

400 F.3d 1225, 2005 WL 627787

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedMarch 18, 2005

Docket03-71121

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 400 F.3d 1225 (Kai Ki Kon v. Alberto Gonzales, Attorney General) 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

Kai Ki Kon v. Alberto Gonzales, Attorney General, 400 F.3d 1225, 2005 WL 627787 (9th Cir. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Kai Ki Kon (“Kon”), a native and citizen of Hong Kong, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA’s”) decision summarily affirming an immigration judge’s denial of asylum and withholding of removal. As an initial matter, we must decide whether Kon’s voluntary departure from the United States deprives this Court of jurisdiction. We find that it does and, accordingly, dismiss Kon’s claims for lack of jurisdiction.

The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act’s (“IIRI-RA”) transitional rules apply in cases where deportation or exclusion proceedings commenced before April 1, 1997, and the final deportation or exclusion order was issued after October 20, 1996. See Kalaw v. INS, 133 F.3d 1147, 1150 (9th Cir.1997). The Government issued a charging document on January 23, 1997 alleging that Kon was excludable from the United States, and the BIA issued its final order on October 8, 1997. Thus, the IIRI-RA’s transitional rules apply here.

The IIRIRA’s transitional rules incorporate 8 U.S.C. § 1105a(e), which provided in relevant part:

An order of deportation or of exclusion shall not be reviewed by any court if the alien has not exhausted the administrative remedies available to him as of right under the immigration laws and regulations or if he has departed from the United States after the issuance of the order.

8 U.S.C. § 1105a(c) (emphasis added).

Because Kon voluntarily departed the United States to Hong Kong after issuance of the exclusion order, we lack jurisdiction to entertain his petition for review under the plain reading of the statute. See Thorsteinsson v. INS, 724 F.2d 1365, 1367 (9th Cir.1984) (interpreting the jurisdictional limits of 8 U.S.C. § 1105a(c)); Hose v. INS, 180 F.3d 992, 996 (9th Cir.1999) (noting that 8 U.S.C. § 1105a(c) strips our jurisdiction over an alien’s petition for review once the alien leaves the United States).

DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION.

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

PER CURIAM.

Kai Ki Kon (“Kon”), a native and citizen of Hong Kong, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA’s”) decision summarily affirming an immigration judge’s denial of asylum and withholding of removal. As an initial matter, we must decide whether Kon’s voluntary departure from the United States deprives this Court of jurisdiction. We find that it does and, accordingly, dismiss Kon’s claims for lack of jurisdiction.

The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act’s (“IIRI-RA”) transitional rules apply in cases where deportation or exclusion proceedings commenced before April 1, 1997, and the final deportation or exclusion order was issued after October 20, 1996. See Kalaw v. INS, 133 F.3d 1147, 1150 (9th Cir.1997). The Government issued a charging document on January 23, 1997 alleging that Kon was excludable from the United States, and the BIA issued its final order on October 8, 1997. Thus, the IIRI-RA’s transitional rules apply here.

The IIRIRA’s transitional rules incorporate 8 U.S.C. § 1105a(e), which provided in relevant part:

An order of deportation or of exclusion shall not be reviewed by any court if the alien has not exhausted the administrative remedies available to him as of right under the immigration laws and regulations or if he has departed from the United States after the issuance of the order.

8 U.S.C. § 1105a(c) (emphasis added).

Because Kon voluntarily departed the United States to Hong Kong after issuance of the exclusion order, we lack jurisdiction to entertain his petition for review under the plain reading of the statute. See Thorsteinsson v. INS, 724 F.2d 1365, 1367 (9th Cir.1984) (interpreting the jurisdictional limits of 8 U.S.C. § 1105a(c)); Hose v. INS, 180 F.3d 992, 996 (9th Cir.1999) (noting that 8 U.S.C. § 1105a(c) strips our jurisdiction over an alien’s petition for review once the alien leaves the United States).

DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

400 F.3d 1225, 2005 WL 627787, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kai-ki-kon-v-alberto-gonzales-attorney-general-ca9-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack