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

appealhearingmotionasylumvisadeportation
appealhearingmotionasylumvisadeportation

Related Cases

Hartooni v. Immigration and Naturalization Service
View Case »
Prekaj v. Immigration and Naturalization Service
View Case »
Luna v. Immigration and Naturalization Service
View Case »
Hernandez-Aguilar; U.S. v.
View Case »
Avila-Murrieta v. Immigration and Naturalization Service
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Romani v. Immigration and Naturalization Service

Facts

The Romanis, a family of Coptic Christians from Egypt, entered the U.S. in 1994 and applied for asylum due to past persecution. They were charged with overstaying their visas and were ordered to appear in immigration court. Although they arrived at the courthouse on time, they were misdirected by their counsel's assistant and did not enter the correct courtroom, resulting in a deportation order entered in absentia. Their motion to reopen was denied by the Immigration Judge, leading to their appeal.

The Romanis, a family of Coptic Christians from Egypt, entered the U.S. in 1994 and applied for asylum due to past persecution. They were charged with overstaying their visas and were ordered to appear in immigration court. Although they arrived at the courthouse on time, they were misdirected by their counsel's assistant and did not enter the correct courtroom, resulting in a deportation order entered in absentia. Their motion to reopen was denied by the Immigration Judge, leading to their appeal.

Issue

Did the Board of Immigration Appeals err in upholding the Immigration Judge's denial of the Romanis' motion to reopen their deportation proceedings?

Did the Board of Immigration Appeals err in upholding the Immigration Judge's denial of the Romanis' motion to reopen their deportation proceedings?

Rule

An Immigration Judge is required to order deportation in absentia if the alien received written notice of the hearing but failed to appear, unless the alien demonstrates that the failure to appear was due to 'exceptional circumstances' beyond their control.

An Immigration Judge is required to order deportation in absentia if the alien received written notice of the hearing but failed to appear, unless the alien demonstrates that the failure to appear was due to 'exceptional circumstances' beyond their control.

Analysis

The court determined that the Romanis did not fail to appear as they were present at the courthouse and attempted to follow the correct procedures. The misdirection by their counsel's assistant constituted an exceptional circumstance that prevented them from entering the courtroom. Therefore, the court concluded that the BIA erred in affirming the IJ's denial of the motion to reopen.

The court determined that the Romanis did not fail to appear as they were present at the courthouse and attempted to follow the correct procedures. The misdirection by their counsel's assistant constituted an exceptional circumstance that prevented them from entering the courtroom. Therefore, the court concluded that the BIA erred in affirming the IJ's denial of the motion to reopen.

Conclusion

The court granted the petition for review and remanded the matter to the BIA for remand to the Immigration Judge, allowing the Romanis to present their case for asylum.

The court granted the petition for review and remanded the matter to the BIA for remand to the Immigration Judge, allowing the Romanis to present their case for asylum.

Who won?

The Romanis prevailed in the case because the court found that they were present at the courthouse and did not fail to appear due to their own fault, thus allowing them to present their claims for asylum.

The Romanis prevailed in the case because the court found that they were present at the courthouse and did not fail to appear due to their own fault, thus allowing them to present their claims for asylum.

You must be