Santiago Moran-Enriquez v. Immigration and Naturalization Service

884 F.2d 420 Santiago MORAN-ENRIQUEZ, Petitioner, v. IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE, Respondent. Nos. 86-7739, 89-70010. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted Aug. 18, 1989. Decided Aug. 29, 1989. James McConnell Bush, Steptoe & Johnson, Phoenix, Ariz., for petitioner. David V. Bernal, Office of Immigration Litigation, Civ. Div., Washington, D.C., for respondent. Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Before WIGGINS, KOZINSKI and RYMER, Circuit Judges. KOZINSKI, Circuit Judge: 1 INS regulations require that an alien in a deportation hearing who appears to be eligible for relief from deportation be so advised by the Immigration Judge. We consider whether the record here contained enough evidence of petitioner Santiago Moran-Enriquez's eligibility for relief to trigger this requirement. Facts 2 Moran was lawfully admitted to the United States for permanent residence on October 15, 1979, as an immediate relative of a United States citizen. While still on permanent resident status, he was convicted in Arizona of two crimes involving moral turpitude. 1 The INS got word of these convictions and ordered petitioner to…

INS regulations require that an alien in a deportation hearing who appears to be eligible for relief from deportation be so advised by the Immigration Judge. We consider whether the record here contained enough evidence of petitioner Santiago Moran-Enriquez’s eligibility for relief to trigger this requirement.

Facts

Moran was lawfully admitted to the United States for permanent residence on October 15, 1979, as an immediate relative of a United States citizen. While still on permanent resident status, he was convicted in Arizona of two crimes involving moral turpitude. 1 The INS got word of these convictions and ordered petitioner to show cause why he should not be deported. A hearing was held on September 5, 1985, before an *422 IJ who found petitioner deportable under section 241(a)(4) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1251 (a)(4) (1982). Represented by counsel who seemed somewhat detached from the proceedings, petitioner did not apply for any relief from deportation and the IJ stated that he did not know of any relief from deportation for which petitioner might be eligible.

Moran appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals, claiming that he was eligible for…

concurring:

Given the parties’ request to stay these proceedings pending consideration by the BIA of petitioner’s second motion to reopen, I would defer ruling until the BIA has acted. However, I concur in the opinion of the court.