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
appealmotionvisadeportation

Related Cases

Rueda-Menicucci v. Immigration and Naturalization Service
View Case »
Radkov v. Ashcroft
View Case »
Lau v. Immigration and Naturalization Service
View Case »
Tagaga v. Immigration and Naturalization Service
View Case »
Reynoso-Lopez v. Ashcroft
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Saiyid v. Immigration and Naturalization Service

Facts

Iftikhar Saiyid and his wife, Nazma, are citizens of Bangladesh who left their country in 1976 to pursue business interests in Dubai and later Oman. After their business relationships soured, they moved to England and then to the United States in 1987 on nonimmigrant business visitor visas, which expired in 1988. They claimed refugee status in 1989, but their asylum application was denied due to Mr. Saiyid's outstanding arrest warrant for embezzlement in Oman. They admitted deportability during their deportation hearing in 1991 but sought withholding of deportation, which was denied by the Immigration Judge. They later became eligible for suspension of deportation but their motion to remand for this purpose was denied by the Board of Immigration Appeals.

Iftikhar Saiyid and his wife, Nazma, are citizens of Bangladesh, which they left in 1976 to pursue business interests in Dubai, United Arab Emirates. The Saiyids worked and lived in Dubai until 1980. They then moved to Oman, again to pursue business interests, where they resided until 1986. After Mr. Saiyid's business relationships in Oman soured, the Saiyids moved to England, where they stayed a full year before obtaining visas under 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(B) (1994) (nonimmigrant business visitor visas), and coming to the United States in 1987.

Issue

Whether the Board of Immigration Appeals erred when it applied a prima facie standard in denying petitioners' motion to remand the case to the Immigration Court to permit them to file an application for suspension of deportation.

Whether the Board of Immigration Appeals (the 'BIA') erred when it applied a prima facie standard in denying petitioners' motion to remand the case to the Immigration Court to permit them to file an application for suspension of deportation.

Rule

The prima facie standard is appropriate for motions to remand or reopen, requiring petitioners to establish a prima facie case of eligibility for the relief sought.

The prima facie standard is appropriate and therefore uphold the findings of the BIA.

Analysis

The court found that the Board did not err in applying the prima facie standard to the Saiyids' motion to remand. The Board determined that the Saiyids failed to show they would suffer extreme hardship upon deportation, which is necessary for suspension of deportation. The court noted that the prima facie standard serves as a screening mechanism to prevent abuse of the suspension privilege and ensures that only those with true hardship cases are granted relief.

Applying the prima facie standard of review customarily used for motions to remand/reopen, see INS v. Abudu, 485 U.S. 94, 104-05, 108 S. Ct. 904, 912, 99 L. Ed. 2d 90 (1988) (establishing that failure to establish a prima face case is grounds for denial of a motion to reopen), the BIA found that the Saiyids had failed to show they would suffer extreme hardship upon deportation.

Conclusion

The court denied the petitioners' request for remand and their petition for review, concluding that they neither proved extreme hardship nor timely requested consideration of it.

The court denied the petitioners' request for remand and their petition for review, concluding that they neither proved extreme hardship nor timely requested consideration of it.

Who won?

The Board of Immigration Appeals prevailed because the court upheld its decision, finding that the Saiyids did not meet the prima facie standard for extreme hardship.

The Board of Immigration Appeals prevailed because the court upheld its decision, finding that the Saiyids did not meet the prima facie standard for extreme hardship.

You must be