Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

attorneyappealhearingmotionburden of proofnaturalizationobjection
attorneyappealhearingmotionburden of proofnaturalizationobjection

Related Cases

Jean; Immigration and Naturalization Service Commissioner v.
View Case »
National Collegiate Recreation Services v. Chertoff
View Case »
Lopez-Garcia; U.S. v.
View Case »
Maynard v. CIA
View Case »
Georgia v. DOJ
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Georcely v. Ashcroft

Facts

Dieudonna Georcely arrived in the United States Virgin Islands from Haiti and was charged with removability by the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS). A hearing was scheduled, but Georcely's counsel filed a motion to change the venue to Miami, which was not received by the immigration court in time. Consequently, the hearing proceeded in absentia, resulting in an order of removal to Haiti. Georcely's subsequent motions to reopen and reconsider were denied by the immigration judge and the Board of Immigration Appeals.

Dieudonna Georcely arrived in the United States Virgin Islands from Haiti and was charged with removability by the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS). A hearing was scheduled, but Georcely's counsel filed a motion to change the venue to Miami, which was not received by the immigration court in time. Consequently, the hearing proceeded in absentia, resulting in an order of removal to Haiti. Georcely's subsequent motions to reopen and reconsider were denied by the immigration judge and the Board of Immigration Appeals.

Issue

Did the immigration judge err in denying Georcely's motions to reopen and reconsider the removal order based on claims of exceptional circumstances?

Did the immigration judge err in denying Georcely's motions to reopen and reconsider the removal order based on claims of exceptional circumstances?

Rule

Under 8 U.S.C. 1229a(b)(5)(C), an order for removal entered in absentia may be rescinded if the alien demonstrates that the failure to appear was due to exceptional circumstances beyond their control.

Under 8 U.S.C. 1229a(b)(5)(C), an order for removal entered in absentia may be rescinded if the alien demonstrates that the failure to appear was due to exceptional circumstances beyond their control.

Analysis

The court found that Georcely was aware of the scheduled hearing and that his attorney had not informed him that the motion to change venue had been granted. The assumption that the motion would be granted due to the absence of an objection from the INS was not considered an exceptional circumstance. The court emphasized that the burden of proof for demonstrating exceptional circumstances lies with the alien, and Georcely failed to meet this burden.

The court found that Georcely was aware of the scheduled hearing and that his attorney had not informed him that the motion to change venue had been granted. The assumption that the motion would be granted due to the absence of an objection from the INS was not considered an exceptional circumstance. The court emphasized that the burden of proof for demonstrating exceptional circumstances lies with the alien, and Georcely failed to meet this burden.

Conclusion

The court affirmed the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals, upholding the order of removal to Haiti.

The court affirmed the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals, upholding the order of removal to Haiti.

Who won?

The prevailing party was the government, as the court upheld the removal order and denied Georcely's motions.

The prevailing party was the government, as the court upheld the removal order and denied Georcely's motions.

You must be