U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, 1986

Ahmad Fayazi-Azad v. Immigration and Naturalization Service

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Decided June 19, 1986 · Wallace, Alarcon, Wiggins

792 F.2d 873; 1986 U.S. App. LEXIS 26238 (Federal Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

Ahmad F. Fayazi-Azad, pro se., Richard M. Evans, Morris H. Deutsch, Dept, of Justice, Washington, D.C., for respondent.

Cases that cite this one

11 later published cases cite this decision.

Ernesto Isidro PABLO, Petitioner, v. IMMIGRATION & NATURALIZATION SERVICE, Respondent (9th Cir. 1995)
Julio Cesar Berroteran-Melendez v. Immigration and Naturalization Service (9th Cir. 1992)
Jian Gang Chu v. Immigration and Naturalization Service (9th Cir. 1989)
Naim Butros v. United States Immigration and Naturalization Service (9th Cir. 1993)
Teresa De Jesus Castillo-Villagra v. Immigration and Naturalization Service (9th Cir. 1992)
Jose Reymundo Bodan-Reyes v. Immigration and Naturalization Service (9th Cir. 1996)
Anthony Ogio v. Immigration & Naturalization Service (9th Cir. 1993)
Jose Armando Barboza-Blanco Gerson Armando Barboza-Hernandez v. U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service (9th Cir. 1993)
Dave Fleary v. Immigration and Naturalization Service (11th Cir. 1992)
Jamal P. Sheikholeslami v. Immigration and Naturalization Service (6th Cir. 1992)
Salvatore Pistone v. Immigration & Naturalization Service (9th Cir. 1992)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion

ORDER

Fayazi-Azad’s petition for review of the BIA’s order denying his application for asylum and withholding of deportation, *874 filed on May 2, 1985, is not a final order appealable in this court. On December 27, 1984, prior to filing his petition for review, Fayazi-Azad filed a motion to reopen his deportation proceedings. The BIA has not yet adjudicated Fayazi-Azad’s motion to reopen. Where a petitioner elects to file a motion to reopen before seeking judicial review, the “otherwise appealable final order becomes no longer appealable in this court until the motion is denied or the proceedings have been effectively terminated.” Hyun Joon Chung v. INS, 720 F.2d 1471, 1474 (9th Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 467 U.S. 1216, 104 S.Ct. 2659, 81 L.Ed.2d 366 (1984). Because the time for filing a petition for judicial review on the underlying order does not begin to run until the agency acts upon the motion to reopen, it is not necessary for a petitioner to file a protective appeal from the BIA’s original decision in order to preserve the issues raised therein. Id.

The petition is DISMISSED.

In order to afford Fayazi-Azad the opportunity to seek a stay of deportation from the BIA pending resolution of his motion to reopen, we stay our mandate for 30 days. See Bu Roe v. INS, 771 F.2d 1328, 1335 (9th Cir. 1985).

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.