Zerafat v. Mukasey

Ninth Circuit

Zerafat v. Mukasey

285 F. App'x 383

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedJuly 8, 2008

DocketNo. 04-72828

StatusPublished

This text of 285 F. App'x 383 (Zerafat 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

Zerafat v. Mukasey, 285 F. App'x 383 (9th Cir. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

**

Jamshid Zerafat, a native and citizen of Iran, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order summarily affirming an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application under 8 U.S.C. § 1186a(c)(4)(B) for a waiver of the requirement that he and his wife file a joint petition to remove the conditional status of his lawful permanent residence. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We grant the petition for review.

Zerafat contends that the IJ violated his due process rights by aggressively examining him. Although Zerafat raised this claim before the BIA, the BIA failed to address it. 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).

In light of our disposition, we decline to reach the issue of Zerafat’s eligibility for a good faith marriage waiver.

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

**

Jamshid Zerafat, a native and citizen of Iran, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order summarily affirming an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application under 8 U.S.C. § 1186a(c)(4)(B) for a waiver of the requirement that he and his wife file a joint petition to remove the conditional status of his lawful permanent residence. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We grant the petition for review.

Zerafat contends that the IJ violated his due process rights by aggressively examining him. Although Zerafat raised this claim before the BIA, the BIA failed to address it. 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).

In light of our disposition, we decline to reach the issue of Zerafat’s eligibility for a good faith marriage waiver.

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)

285 F. App'x 383, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/zerafat-v-mukasey-ca9-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack