Monday, July 16, 2007

Third Circuit Admonishes OIL (Department of Justice) Attorneys for Typos and Referring to the Wrong Appeal

The Third Circuit included a long footnote at the end of a not-precedential decision that pointed out there were a myriad of typographical errors by the OIL (Office of Immigration Litigation in the Department of Justice) lawyers. For example, calling the man's oldest son his "oldest song." Or instead of saying he submitted something, saying he "submittede" something. Misspelling that as "thagt" (I guess they don't even use spellcheck.)

But the Third Circuit particularly expressed concern about how the government lawyers incorrectly referred to the person filing the appeal by the wrong name (Chung instead of Rahman). Are they cutting and pasting language from another brief and not reviewing and editing their work before filing it? The Third Circuit probably hates when lawyers do that.

In any case, the Third Circuit closed with a comment that "We trust that in the future this admonition will be heeded." The case, by the way, is Rahman v. Gonzales, No. 05-3487 (3d Cir. July 16, 2007) (not precedential) (affirming the decisions by the BIA and IJ Annie S. Garcy).

2 Comments:

Blogger Scott said...

Being somewhat of a perfectionist and quick to notice typos myself, I had to check this out. But in searching for the opinion, I came across this subsequent order which seems to delete the admonishing footnote #3 from the opinion in the case:
http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/053487npa.pdf

Any speculation as to why they would do that?

6:28 PM  
Anonymous Rex said...

Wow, Scott, thanks for pointing this out. I have no idea why they would delete the exciting footnote that criticized OIL for all their typos and mistakes.

Maybe one of the other judges told Judge Ambro he was being just a little bit too harsh? Maybe someone at OIL submitted an apology and asked them to be nice enough to expunge the footnote? (Of course, I'd hope that if OIL did that, they let the other side know about the communication.)

Anyone have their own guesses for why the Third Circuit did that?

6:46 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home