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[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]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