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

appealhearingmotionrespondent
appealhearingmotiondeportation

Related Cases

Mahmood v. Gonzales
View Case »
Perez-Andrade, Matter of
View Case »
Arrozal v. Immigration and Naturalization Service
View Case »
Aguilar v. Lewis
View Case »
Blake v. U.S. Attorney Gen.
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Squires v. _NS

Facts

The case arose when the petitioner, Squires, sought a rehearing of a previous decision made by the Board of Immigration Appeals. The court reviewed the motion for rehearing and found that the issues raised had already been considered in the original opinion. The petitioner also requested clarification regarding his right to voluntary departure, which was addressed by the court.

The panel has noted nothing of substance in the motion for rehearing which was not carefully considered before issuance of the Court's opinion.

Issue

Whether the court should grant the petition for rehearing and clarify the petitioner's right to voluntary departure.

The panel has noted nothing of substance in the motion for rehearing which was not carefully considered before issuance of the Court's opinion.

Rule

The court noted that no judge in active service had moved for rehearing en banc, and the panel found no substantive issues in the motion that had not been previously considered.

The motion is therefore denied.

Analysis

The court applied the rule by reviewing the motion for rehearing and determining that the arguments presented were not new and had been adequately addressed in the original opinion. The court also recognized the petitioner's right to voluntary departure as per the Board's previous order and relevant statutory provisions.

Petitioner has also suggested that, in the event his motion for rehearing is denied, the Court should modify its affirmance of the Board of Immigration Appeals to make clear that petitioner has the right of voluntary departure pursuant to the Board's previous order and 8 U.S.C. 1254(e).

Conclusion

The court denied the motion for rehearing but granted the petitioner's request for clarification regarding his right to voluntary departure, allowing him thirty days to leave the United States.

This request is well taken and is accordingly granted. Petitioner Squires shall have thirty (30) days from the issuance of this order or the termination of any valid stay of deportation to depart voluntarily from the United States.

Who won?

The prevailing party is the respondent, INS, as the court denied the petitioner's motion for rehearing but granted a clarification regarding voluntary departure.

The motion is therefore denied.

You must be