Rigoberto Yepes-Prado v. U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service

36 F.3d 83, 94 Daily Journal DAR 13896, 94 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 7529, 1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 27618

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: October 3, 1994
• Docket: 91-70114
• Status: Published

Opinions

Concurrence by Judge FERGUSON; Concurrence by Judge REINHARDT; Dissent by Judge KOZINSKI.

ORDER

The Clerk is directed to furnish the Immigration and Naturalization Service with a copy of counsel’s letter of July 28, 1994, and to inquire in writing whether the Service wishes to respond to or comment upon the letter.

FERGUSON, Circuit Judge,

explaining a silly affair:

Judge Kozinski’s dissent requires an explanation about the brief order of the majority.

In November of 1993, the panel in this case issued its amended opinion, Yepes-Prado v. INS, 10 F.3d 1363 (9th Cir.1993), vacating the denial by the Board of Immigration Appeals of Yepes-Prado’s petition for a discretionary waiver of deportation, and remanding the matter back to the Board for further proceedings consistent with the opinion.

Recently Mr. Martin Resendez Guajardo, the attorney for Mr. Yepes-Prado, sent a letter to the Clerk of this Court seeking guidance of the Court on the proper manner in which to respond to alleged delays of the Immigration and Naturalization Service and the Board with regard to the remand.

The Clerk’s office properly and routinely made copies of the letter and sent them to the members of the panel. There is no record that the government has been advised that was done. The majority deemed it sensible to ask the Clerk to inquire whether the government wished to respond to Mr. Gua-jardo’s letter.

Judge Kozinski believes that we don’t have jurisdiction to ask the Clerk to ask the Department of Justice if it cares to respond. He has also demanded that the order and his dissent be published.

His request for publication, of course, has been honored. And, of course, there is no jurisdictional impairment to the majority’s simple request.

A disclaimer is necessary by reason of the elitist expressions in the dissent regarding unsolicited communications. It is doubtful that any other judge in America believes that judges may be addressed only with permission. In addition, it is important to remember that the letter was addressed to and sent to the Clerk.

Finally, it is unbelievable that anyone in the Department of Justice is so paranoid to believe, as does Judge Kozinski, that the simple request of the majority is a “thinly-veiled message indicating that we have given serious consideration to Mr. Guajardo’s letter.” Judge Kozinski says there shouldn’t be secrets, yet dissents when the majority lifts the veil.