Dezso Pal Hajnal v. U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service

Good Law
92 Daily Journal DAR 14734·980 F.2d 1247·1992 WL 310247·1992 U.S. App. LEXIS 27923·92 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 8905
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitOctober 26, 199290-70453California309 words

Opinion

Opinion

Hajnal, a Canadian citizen, petitions for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) affirming his deportation order. After the issuance of the BIA’s decision, Hajnal voluntarily left the United States. The Immigration and Naturalization Service moves to dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We grant the motion.

As a general rule, we may not review deportation orders of aliens who depart from the United States after the order has been issued. The Immigration and Nationality Act provides, in pertinent part: “An order of deportation or of exclusion shall not be reviewed by any court ... if [the alien] has departed from the United States after issuance of the order.” 8 U.S.C. § 1105a(c) (1988).

It is well-established in our Circuit that § 1105a(c) applies only in cases where the departure was “legally executed.” Mendez v. Immigration and Naturalization Service, 563 F.2d 956, 958 (9th Cir.1977). Here, since the departure was voluntary, it was legally executed.

Hajnal opposes the motion on the ground that § 1105a(c) does not apply to him because he was a permanent resident of the United States at the time he was deported. Neither § 1105a(c) nor the…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.