Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

GUERRERO-JIRON v. SCHILTGEN

March 19, 1996

CAROL GUERRERO-JIRON, Petitioner,
v.
THOMAS J. SCHILTGEN, DISTRICT DIRECTOR, U.S. IMMIGRATION & NATURALIZATION SERVICE, Respondent.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: ARMSTRONG

 Petitioner brings the above captioned action seeking a stay of deportation until September 4, 1997. Having read and considered the papers submitted by the parties, and being fully informed, the Court DENIES the petition for a writ of habeas corpus.

 BACKGROUND

 Petitioner is a native and citizen of Nicaragua. She is presently living in this country with her husband, who is also a citizen of Nicaragua, and their five children, four of whom are United States citizens. She last entered the country illegally on August 13, 1989. On August 15, 1989, the Immigration and Naturalization Service ("INS") issued an order to show cause why she should not be deported. Petitioner conceded deportability, but sought political asylum. On April 25, 1991, her petition for asylum was denied. She made a timely appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals ("BIA"), and then to the Ninth Circuit, each of which denied her claim.

 Petitioner was ordered to surrender for deportation on March 4, 1996. On February 22, 1996, she applied to the INS District Director ("DD") for a stay of deportation, and for deferred action. The Deputy District Director ("DDD") denied her application for these discretionary remedies in a four page written decision dated March 4, 1996.

 On March 4, 1996, petitioner filed the instant petition seeking review of the DDD's decision. Petitioner asserts that the DDD abused his discretion in not granting her either a stay of deportation or "deferred action" status. The government opposes her petition and argues that the DDD's decision to deny a stay of deportation was not an abuse of discretion. The government also asserts that the Court lacks jurisdiction to review the decision not to grant "deferred action" status.

 DISCUSSION

 I. Denial of Motion for Stay

 A. Legal Standard

 "The district court has jurisdiction on a petition for writ of habeas corpus to review both the BIA denial and the District Director's denial of requests to stay deportation." Butros v. INS, 804 F. Supp. 1336, 1339 (D. Or. 1991) (citing Dhangu v. INS, 812 F.2d 455, 459 (9th Cir. 1987)). A denial of a request for a stay of deportation is reviewed for abuse of discretion. Blancada v. Turnage, 883 F.2d 836, 838 (9th Cir. 1989).

 "The stay may not be denied arbitrarily, irrationally, or contrary to law. Cursory, summary, or conclusory statements are inadequate.' When a request for a stay is denied, the ruling body must give reasons for its decision that demonstrate that it has fully considered the request." Butros, 804 F. Supp. at 1339 (quoting Batoon v. INS, 707 F.2d 399, 401 (9th Cir. 1983) (internal citations omitted).

 B. Application

 The DDD's four-page single-spaced denial of petitioner's request for a stay adequately sets forth the reasons for the decision to deny discretionary relief in this case. It is wholly unlike the "merely conclusory" decisions which have been found to constitute an abuse of discretion. E.g., Butros v. INS, 804 F. Supp. at 1338 ("The BIA decision is inadequate because it is merely conclusory. . . . The BIA stated only that it considered the application for a stay and concluded that there was little likelihood of success on the merits of the motion to reopen. The BIA offered no reasoning or analysis whatsoever.").


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.