Khaldoon Nasan Saadi v. Immigration and Naturalization Service

Tenth Circuit

Khaldoon Nasan Saadi v. Immigration and Naturalization Service

912 F.2d 428, 1990 U.S. App. LEXIS 14788, 1990 WL 123048

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit

DecidedAugust 27, 1990

Docket89-9554

StatusPublished

Cited by21 cases

This text of 912 F.2d 428 (Khaldoon Nasan Saadi v. Immigration and Naturalization Service) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Khaldoon Nasan Saadi v. Immigration and Naturalization Service, 912 F.2d 428, 1990 U.S. App. LEXIS 14788, 1990 WL 123048 (10th Cir. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Respondent INS moves to dismiss this cause as jurisdictionally deficient. Fed. R. App. P. 27; 10th Cir. R. 10.2.8 & 27.2.1. Petitioner seeks review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board). The Board dismissed petitioner’s appeal from a decision of the immigration judge finding petitioner deportable under § 241(a)(2) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. § 1251(a)(2), and ineligible for relief from deportation.

Jurisdiction to review a final order of deportation by the Board arises under § 106(a) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1105a(a) and 28 U.S.C. ch. 158 pertaining to review of orders of federal agencies. Michelson v. INS, 897 F.2d 465, 467 (10th Cir.1990). However, § 106(c) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1105a(c), provides in 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.

(emphasis added). The INS contends that petitioner’s deportation eliminates our jurisdiction to review his deportation order. We agree.

“The statute’s command is unequivocal[:]” once petitioner departed the United States via deportation, a deportation order may not be reviewed by “any court.” Umanzor v. Lambert, 782 F.2d 1299, 1303 (5th Cir.1986); see also Quezada v. INS, 898 F.2d 474, 476-77 (5th Cir.1990); Asai v. Castillo, 593 F.2d 1222, 1223-24 (D.C.Cir.1979). The right to obtain judicial review of a final deportation order does not require the INS to defer deportation; a stay must be obtained. 8 U.S.C. § 1105a(a)(7); Umanzor, 782 F.2d at 1303.

The record establishes that no stay was obtained and petitioner has been deported. Thus, we are without jurisdiction to review this deportation order. See Quezada, 898 F.2d at 477.

PETITION DISMISSED.

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

PER CURIAM.

Respondent INS moves to dismiss this cause as jurisdictionally deficient. Fed. R. App. P. 27; 10th Cir. R. 10.2.8 & 27.2.1. Petitioner seeks review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board). The Board dismissed petitioner’s appeal from a decision of the immigration judge finding petitioner deportable under § 241(a)(2) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. § 1251(a)(2), and ineligible for relief from deportation.

Jurisdiction to review a final order of deportation by the Board arises under § 106(a) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1105a(a) and 28 U.S.C. ch. 158 pertaining to review of orders of federal agencies. Michelson v. INS, 897 F.2d 465, 467 (10th Cir.1990). However, § 106(c) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1105a(c), provides in 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.

(emphasis added). The INS contends that petitioner’s deportation eliminates our jurisdiction to review his deportation order. We agree.

“The statute’s command is unequivocal[:]” once petitioner departed the United States via deportation, a deportation order may not be reviewed by “any court.” Umanzor v. Lambert, 782 F.2d 1299, 1303 (5th Cir.1986); see also Quezada v. INS, 898 F.2d 474, 476-77 (5th Cir.1990); Asai v. Castillo, 593 F.2d 1222, 1223-24 (D.C.Cir.1979). The right to obtain judicial review of a final deportation order does not require the INS to defer deportation; a stay must be obtained. 8 U.S.C. § 1105a(a)(7); Umanzor, 782 F.2d at 1303.

The record establishes that no stay was obtained and petitioner has been deported. Thus, we are without jurisdiction to review this deportation order. See Quezada, 898 F.2d at 477.

PETITION DISMISSED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

912 F.2d 428, 1990 U.S. App. LEXIS 14788, 1990 WL 123048, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/khaldoon-nasan-saadi-v-immigration-and-naturalization-service-ca10-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack