Patil (Not Precedential): BIA Must Consider Evidence When Ruling On Motion To Reopen In Absentia Order
Patil v. Holder
Not Precedential
No. 08-2845
June 10, 2009
http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/082845np.pdf
Judges Ambro, Fisher, and Jordan. Per Curiam decision.
The Third Circuit overturned the BIA in a case where IJ Henry S. Dogin had denied a motion to reopen. If the court mails notice of a court date by ordinary mail, there is a presumption of receipt that an individual can rebut by producing contrary evidence, such as a sworn affidavit along with circumstantial evidence corroborating the claim of non-receipt. Santana-Gonzalez v. Mukasey, 506 F.3d 274 (3d Cir. 2007).
Here, the BIA made a fatal mistake by not considering all of the evidence that Mr. Patil offered. The BIA is required to consider all relevant evidence. Matter of M-R-A-, 24 I&N Dec. 665, 674 (BIA 2008).
Not Precedential
No. 08-2845
June 10, 2009
http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/082845np.pdf
Judges Ambro, Fisher, and Jordan. Per Curiam decision.
The Third Circuit overturned the BIA in a case where IJ Henry S. Dogin had denied a motion to reopen. If the court mails notice of a court date by ordinary mail, there is a presumption of receipt that an individual can rebut by producing contrary evidence, such as a sworn affidavit along with circumstantial evidence corroborating the claim of non-receipt. Santana-Gonzalez v. Mukasey, 506 F.3d 274 (3d Cir. 2007).
Here, the BIA made a fatal mistake by not considering all of the evidence that Mr. Patil offered. The BIA is required to consider all relevant evidence. Matter of M-R-A-, 24 I&N Dec. 665, 674 (BIA 2008).
posted by Rex at 12:05 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home