Clarke v. INS
U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
Clarke v. INS
Opinion
USCA1 Opinion
September 5, 1995
[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
____________________
No. 95-1137
ALFORD CHRISTOPHER CLARK,
Petitioner,
v.
IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE,
Respondent.
____________________
ON PETITION FOR REVIEW OF AN ORDER
OF THE BOARD OF IMMIGRATION APPEALS
____________________
Before
Cyr, Boudin and Lynch,
Circuit Judges, ______________
____________________
Alan M. Pampanin and Bennett R. Savitz on brief for petitioner. ________________ _________________
Frank W. Hunger, Assistant Attorney General, Civil Division, _________________
Philemina McNeill Jones and John J. Andre, Attorneys, Office of ________________________ _______________
Immigration Litigation Civil Division, on brief for respondent.
____________________
____________________
Per Curiam. Petitioner Alford Clarke seeks ___________
judicial review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) order
that dismissed his appeal from an Immigration Judge's denial
of his motion to reopen deportation proceedings after the
petitioner was ordered deported in absentia. The immigration __ ________
judge entered the deportation order after the petitioner
failed to appear on time for a hearing on his application for
212(c) relief. See 8 U.S.C. 1182(c). ___
We have thoroughly reviewed the record and the parties'
briefs on appeal. We find no merit in the petitioner's
arguments. It is well established that in absentia hearings __ ________
are not "per se violative of due process." Patel v. ___ __ _____
U.S.I.N.S., 803 F.3d 804, 806 (5th Cir. 1986). The fact that __________
the petitioner appeared late, as opposed to failing to appear
at all, and had previously reported to the INS pursuant to
the conditions of his release, is irrelevant. The record
discloses that the petitioner was given a reasonable
opportunity to be present and that he failed to provide a
reasonable cause for his absence. Under these circumstances,
the in absentia order did not violate due process. See __ ________ ___
Maldonado-Perez v. INS, 865 F.2d 328, 329-37 (D.C. Cir. _______________ ___
1989); Reyes-Arias v. INS, 866 F.2d 500, 503 (D.C. Cir. ___________ ___
1989).
Accordingly, the petition for review is denied. _______
-2-
Reference
- Status
- Published