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

statuteappealhearingasylumvisadeportationnaturalizationjudicial review
statuteappealhearingasylumvisadeportationnaturalizationjudicial review

Related Cases

Rivera v. Brickman Group Ltd.
View Case »
Mostofi v. Napolitano
View Case »
Yakovenko v. Gonzales
View Case »
Bell v. Immigration and Naturalization Service
View Case »
Berrio-Barrera v. Gonzales
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Wigglesworth v. Immigration and Naturalization Service

Facts

Yvonne Wigglesworth was born in Denmark and is a citizen of Sweden. She has resided in the United States since June 3, 1980, with two interruptions. In 1981, she returned to Sweden for a period of approximately one year to serve a seven-month sentence for trafficking in hashish. She returned to the United States in 1982. After her return, she left the United States only once; in 1990, for a period of three weeks, she visited her ailing mother in Sweden. Prior to her first departure from the United States in 1981, Ms. Wigglesworth married a United States citizen, Charles Wigglesworth. They have one child, Kristina, born in January 1984. In 1988, Mr. Wigglesworth filed a Petition for Alien Relative (Form I-130) for his wife. The INS approved this petition on January 27, 1989. In 1990, the Wigglesworths went to an immigration consulting agency called 'Servicio Continental' to inquire about adjusting Ms. Wigglesworth's immigration status to that of a lawful permanent resident. The agency apparently told Ms. Wigglesworth that, in order to complete the application, she first would need to establish that she had entered the United States legally by obtaining a new I-94 departure record to replace the one that was misplaced after her 1982 reentry. Although it is unclear from the record exactly what was communicated to her, Ms. Wigglesworth was left with the impression that she would be able to reenter the United States without a visa pursuant to the VWPP and thereafter pursue an adjustment of status.

Yvonne Wigglesworth was born in Denmark and is a citizen of Sweden. She has resided in the United States since June 3, 1980, with two interruptions. In 1981, she returned to Sweden for a period of approximately one year to serve a seven-month sentence for trafficking in hashish. She returned to the United States in 1982. After her return, she left the United States only once; in 1990, for a period of three weeks, she visited her ailing mother in Sweden. Prior to her first departure from the United States in 1981, Ms. Wigglesworth married a United States citizen, Charles Wigglesworth. They have one child, Kristina, born in January 1984. In 1988, Mr. Wigglesworth filed a Petition for Alien Relative (Form I-130) for his wife. The INS approved this petition on January 27, 1989. In 1990, the Wigglesworths went to an immigration consulting agency called 'Servicio Continental' to inquire about adjusting Ms. Wigglesworth's immigration status to that of a lawful permanent resident. The agency apparently told Ms. Wigglesworth that, in order to complete the application, she first would need to establish that she had entered the United States legally by obtaining a new I-94 departure record to replace the one that was misplaced after her 1982 reentry. Although it is unclear from the record exactly what was communicated to her, Ms. Wigglesworth was left with the impression that she would be able to reenter the United States without a visa pursuant to the VWPP and thereafter pursue an adjustment of status.

Issue

Whether the court could consider the petition for review given that the alien waived her right to contest deportation when she entered the country under the VWPP, and whether 8 U.S.C.S. 1252(g) precluded judicial review of discretionary decisions to commence proceedings, adjudicate cases, or execute removal orders.

Whether the court could consider the petition for review given that the alien waived her right to contest deportation when she entered the country under the VWPP, and whether 8 U.S.C.S. 1252(g) precluded judicial review of discretionary decisions to commence proceedings, adjudicate cases, or execute removal orders.

Rule

Under the Visa Waiver Pilot Program (VWPP), an alien waives any right to contest deportation except on the basis of an application for asylum. This waiver is valid if the alien knowingly and intelligently signed the waiver form.

Under the Visa Waiver Pilot Program (VWPP), an alien waives any right to contest deportation except on the basis of an application for asylum. This waiver is valid if the alien knowingly and intelligently signed the waiver form.

Analysis

The court found that Ms. Wigglesworth had waived her rights to contest her deportation when she entered the United States under the VWPP. The court noted that she signed a form that explicitly stated she was waiving her rights to a hearing, an administrative appeal, and judicial review. The court also highlighted that her challenge to the INS's decision was based on grounds other than asylum, which was specifically forbidden by the statute.

The court found that Ms. Wigglesworth had waived her rights to contest her deportation when she entered the United States under the VWPP. The court noted that she signed a form that explicitly stated she was waiving her rights to a hearing, an administrative appeal, and judicial review. The court also highlighted that her challenge to the INS's decision was based on grounds other than asylum, which was specifically forbidden by the statute.

Conclusion

The court dismissed the alien's petition for review of the immigration board's final order affirming termination of proceedings.

The court dismissed the alien's petition for review of the immigration board's final order affirming termination of proceedings.

Who won?

The Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) prevailed in the case because the court upheld the termination of deportation proceedings based on the alien's waiver of rights under the VWPP.

The Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) prevailed in the case because the court upheld the termination of deportation proceedings based on the alien's waiver of rights under the VWPP.

You must be