Ogunmowo v. Mukasey

Ninth Circuit

Ogunmowo v. Mukasey

310 F. App'x 105

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedJanuary 21, 2009

DocketNo. 06-71095

StatusPublished

This text of 310 F. App'x 105 (Ogunmowo 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

Ogunmowo v. Mukasey, 310 F. App'x 105 (9th Cir. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

**

Hakeem Akintunde Ogunmowo, a native and citizen of Nigeria, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s order denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings conducted in absentia. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, Celis-Castellano v. Ashcroft, 298 F.3d 888, 890 (9th Cir.2002), and we grant the petition for review.

Notice of Ogunmowo’s July 1, 2005 removal hearing was not sent to Ogunmo-wo’s last address of record. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(5)(A). We therefore remand with directions that the agency reopen Ogunmowo’s removal proceedings. See Sembiring v. Gonzales, 499 F.3d 981, 991 (9th Cir.2007).

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

**

Hakeem Akintunde Ogunmowo, a native and citizen of Nigeria, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s order denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings conducted in absentia. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, Celis-Castellano v. Ashcroft, 298 F.3d 888, 890 (9th Cir.2002), and we grant the petition for review.

Notice of Ogunmowo’s July 1, 2005 removal hearing was not sent to Ogunmo-wo’s last address of record. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(5)(A). We therefore remand with directions that the agency reopen Ogunmowo’s removal proceedings. See Sembiring v. Gonzales, 499 F.3d 981, 991 (9th Cir.2007).

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)

310 F. App'x 105, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ogunmowo-v-mukasey-ca9-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack