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

tortappealdue processpiracy
hearingdue processpiracy

Related Cases

Flores-Powell v. Chadbourne
View Case »
Munoz v. Ashcroft
View Case »
Hinds v. Lynch
View Case »
Flores-Torres v. Mukasey
View Case »
Ochoa v. Gonzales
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Turkhan v. Lynch

Facts

Shmael Isaac Turkhan immigrated to the U.S. in 1979 as a lawful permanent resident. He was convicted of conspiracy to distribute cocaine in 1990 but had no legal issues since then. The Department of Homeland Security sought to deport him, and while the Board of Immigration Appeals deferred his removal under the U.N. Convention Against Torture, it refused to reopen his application for relief from removal, leading to Turkhan's petitions for review.

In 1979, Shmael Isaac Turkhan, an Assyrian Christian and citizen of Iraq, immigrated to the United States as a lawful permanent resident. He was convicted of conspiracy to distribute cocaine in 1990 but has had no trouble with the law since then. Twenty-six years later, the Department of Homeland Security, Javert-like, is still trying to deport him to Iraq.

Issue

Whether the Board of Immigration Appeals erred in refusing to reopen Turkhan's application for relief from removal and whether Turkhan was denied due process in the proceedings.

Turkhan argues that the Board and the immigration judge erred in declining to reopen the decision requiring his removal for two reasons: first, he says, it was wrong for the Board to read its own order as a limited remand for consideration of relief under the CAT rather than as a reopening of the entire proceeding under section 212(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. 1182(c) (1994); and second, the Board should have found that Turkhan's constitutional right to procedural due process was violated at his original section 212(c) hearing.

Rule

The court applied the principle that reopening an alien's removal proceedings does not automatically reopen previously denied applications for relief, especially when the government opposes such reopening. Additionally, due process rights are not guaranteed in discretionary immigration proceedings.

The court found that the Board's decision to deny reopening Turkhan's application was justified, as the government opposed the reopening and there was no legal requirement for the Board to act otherwise. Additionally, due process rights are not guaranteed in discretionary immigration proceedings.

Analysis

The court found that the Board's decision to deny reopening Turkhan's application was justified, as the government opposed the reopening and there was no legal requirement for the Board to act otherwise. Furthermore, the court noted that Turkhan's due process claim was not valid since the relief he sought was discretionary and did not protect a right under due process.

The court found that the Board's decision to deny reopening Turkhan's application was justified, as the government opposed the reopening and there was no legal requirement for the Board to act otherwise. Furthermore, the court noted that Turkhan's due process claim was not valid since the relief he sought was discretionary and did not protect a right under due process.

Conclusion

The court affirmed the Board's decision, denying Turkhan's petitions for review and holding that he was not improperly denied due process.

The court affirmed the Board's decision, denying Turkhan's petitions for review and holding that he was not improperly denied due process.

Who won?

The government prevailed in the case because the court upheld the Board's decision to deny Turkhan's petitions for reopening his removal proceedings and found no due process violation.

The government prevailed in the case because the court upheld the Board's decision to deny Turkhan's petitions for reopening his removal proceedings and found no due process violation.

You must be