U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, 1991

Blanca Rosa Echeverria-Hernandez v. U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Decided November 5, 1991 · Wallace, Browning, Fletcher, Canby, Reinhardt, Hall, Brunetti, Kozinski, Thompson, Fernandez, Nelson

946 F.2d 1481; 91 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 8862; 91 Daily Journal DAR 13664; 1991 U.S. App. LEXIS 26567 (Federal Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

Linton Joaquin, Central American Refugee Center, Los Angeles, Cal., for petitioner., Mary A. Sedgwick, Asst. U.S. Atty., Los Angeles, Cal., for respondent.

Cases that cite this one

10 later published cases cite this decision.

Maiane Mgoian v. Immigration and Naturalization Service (9th Cir. 1999)
Haji Fofana v. Eric Holder, Jr. (9th Cir. 2013)
McKesson HBOC, Inc. v. Islam Repub Iran (D.C. Cir. 2002)
United States v. Bonnie L. Urfer and Michael R. Sprong (7th Cir. 2002)
United States v. Urfer, Bonnie L. (7th Cir. 2002)
McKesson HBOC, Inc. v. Islam Repub Iran (D.C. Cir. 2001)
McKesson HBOC, Inc. v. Islamic Republic of Iran (D.C. Cir. 2001)
Mario Ernesto Navas v. Immigration and Naturalization Service (9th Cir. 2000)
Yonathan Kahssai v. Immigration and Naturalization Service (9th Cir. 1994)
Raynaud Castillo-Bendana v. U.S. Immigration and 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

946 F.2d 1481

Blanca Rosa ECHEVERRIA-HERNANDEZ, Petitioner,
v.
U.S. IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE, Respondent.

No. 89-70236.

United States Court of Appeals,
Ninth Circuit.

Argued En Banc and Submitted Sept. 26, 1991.
Decided Nov. 5, 1991.

Linton Joaquin, Central American Refugee Center, Los Angeles, Cal., for petitioner.

Mary A. Sedgwick, Asst. U.S. Atty., Los Angeles, Cal., for respondent.

Petition to Review a Decision of the Immigration and Naturalization Service.

Before WALLACE, Chief Judge, BROWNING, FLETCHER, CANBY, REINHARDT, HALL, BRUNETTI, KOZINSKI, THOMPSON, FERNANDEZ and T.G. NELSON, Circuit Judges.

The Opinion filed in this case on January 14, 1991, 923 F.2d 688 (9th Cir. 1991), is vacated. As an alternative to the stay requested by the parties, within thirty days of the entry of this order the court will dismiss the petition for review without prejudice to reinstatement. Any objections to the dismissal without prejudice shall be filed within twenty-one days of the entry of this order. If no objection is filed, the petition will be dismissed without further notice.

To preserve the automatic stay under 8 U.S.C. § 1105a(a)(3), the mandate will be withheld until termination of any administrative proceedings affecting appellant Echeverria-Hernandez commenced pursuant to the settlement agreement in American Baptist Churches v. Thornburgh, 760 F.Supp. 796 (N.D.Cal. 1991), or the Immigration Act of 1990 (Pub.L. No. 101-649), or until further order of this court. The parties are instructed promptly to advise the court of any change in circumstances that might moot the petition for review or otherwise make it appropriate to issue the mandate.

WALLACE, Chief Judge, with whom Circuit Judges CYNTHIA HOLCOMB HALL, BRUNETTI, DAVID R. THOMPSON, and FERNANDEZ join, dissenting:

Our court has adopted an administrative policy that, once cases such as this are in the jurisdiction of a panel, the panel has the discretion to stay or decide the appeal and file a disposition. I assume the same policy applies to an en banc court.

The panel, for good reasons, decided not to stay. The majority of the en banc court believes we should. I disagree and would not stay the appeal or dismiss the petition.

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