Tica v. Mukasey

Ninth Circuit

Tica v. Mukasey

276 F. App'x 585

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedApril 30, 2008

DocketNo. 04-76105

StatusPublished

This text of 276 F. App'x 585 (Tica 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

Tica v. Mukasey, 276 F. App'x 585 (9th Cir. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

**

Florencia S. Tica, a native and citizen of the Philippines, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order summarily affirming an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) exclusion order. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We grant the petition for review and remand.

Tica contends that the IJ violated due process by failing to inform her of the availability of relief and by refusing to grant a continuance or administrative closure. Although Tica raised these claims before the BIA, the BIA failed to address them. We therefore remand for further proceedings. See Montes-Lopez v. Gonzales, 486 F.3d 1163, 1165 (9th Cir.2007) (“When a petitioner raises a claim based on a purported procedural defect of the proceedings before the IJ, the only administrative entity capable of independently addressing that claim is the BIA.”); see also INS v. Ventura, 537 U.S. 12, 16-18, 123 S.Ct. 353, 154 L.Ed.2d 272 (2002) (per curiam).

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

**

Florencia S. Tica, a native and citizen of the Philippines, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order summarily affirming an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) exclusion order. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We grant the petition for review and remand.

Tica contends that the IJ violated due process by failing to inform her of the availability of relief and by refusing to grant a continuance or administrative closure. Although Tica raised these claims before the BIA, the BIA failed to address them. We therefore remand for further proceedings. See Montes-Lopez v. Gonzales, 486 F.3d 1163, 1165 (9th Cir.2007) (“When a petitioner raises a claim based on a purported procedural defect of the proceedings before the IJ, the only administrative entity capable of independently addressing that claim is the BIA.”); see also INS v. Ventura, 537 U.S. 12, 16-18, 123 S.Ct. 353, 154 L.Ed.2d 272 (2002) (per curiam).

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)

276 F. App'x 585, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tica-v-mukasey-ca9-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack