Makanast (Not Precedential): BIA Given Leeway To Conclude Lawyer's Mailing Did Not Include Motion For This Case
Makanast v. Holder
Not Precedential
http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/083031np.pdf
May 29, 2009
Judges Barry, Smith, and Hardiman. Per Curiam.
Hard to understand what is going on with this case, but the BIA is free to conclude that a mailing did not include the motion that Parsekian & Solomon filed for someone. The short description does not really explain what is happening. Maybe that law firm filed a motion in a case for a different client and it suggests they never filed a motion for this case?
Perhaps the best practice would be to make a note of the receipt number for your mailing in some part of the filing, such as in a cover letter or scribbled on the cover sheet of the filing. Too little information to figure out what the significance of this case is.
Not Precedential
http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/083031np.pdf
May 29, 2009
Judges Barry, Smith, and Hardiman. Per Curiam.
Hard to understand what is going on with this case, but the BIA is free to conclude that a mailing did not include the motion that Parsekian & Solomon filed for someone. The short description does not really explain what is happening. Maybe that law firm filed a motion in a case for a different client and it suggests they never filed a motion for this case?
Perhaps the best practice would be to make a note of the receipt number for your mailing in some part of the filing, such as in a cover letter or scribbled on the cover sheet of the filing. Too little information to figure out what the significance of this case is.
posted by Rex at 9:00 AM
1 Comments:
No idea who usaimmigrationsupport dot com is, but I urge people never to use them. Someone keeps posting spam comments to try to drum up business for them. Please avoid them!
Post a Comment
<< Home