Rigoberto Yepes-Prado v. U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service

Concurrence by Judge FERGUSON; Concurrence by Judge REINHARDT; Dissent by Judge KOZINSKI.

ORDER

The Clerk is directed to furnish the Immigration and Naturalization Service with a copy of counsel’s letter of July 28, 1994, and to inquire in writing whether the Service wishes to respond to or comment upon the letter.

explaining a silly affair:

Judge Kozinski’s dissent requires an explanation about the brief order of the majority.

In November of 1993, the panel in this case issued its amended opinion, Yepes-Prado v. INS, 10 F.3d 1363 (9th Cir.1993), vacating the denial by the Board of Immigration Appeals of Yepes-Prado’s petition for a discretionary waiver of deportation, and remanding the matter back to the Board for further proceedings consistent with the opinion.

Recently Mr. Martin Resendez Guajardo, the attorney for Mr. Yepes-Prado, sent a letter to the Clerk of this Court seeking guidance of the Court on the proper manner in which to respond to alleged delays of the Immigration and Naturalization Service and the Board with regard to the remand.

The Clerk’s office properly and routinely made copies of the letter and sent them to the members of the panel. There is no…

concurring separately:

A judge of this court having requested that a letter be sent to the Immigration and Naturalization Service concerning a matter on which this panel has retained jurisdiction over future petitions or proceedings, I am *84 pleased to accede to my colleague’s request. I therefore concur in the order.

dissenting:

My colleagues take the extraordinary step of sending the INS a written inquiry asking whether it would like to respond to a letter that hasn’t been filed — a letter that can’t be filed because there is no ease pending before the court. The letter comes to us from petitioner’s counsel, Martin Resendez Guajardo, who has taken it upon himself to bombard us with unsolicited and unauthorized correspondence relating facts that allegedly have transpired since we remanded the ease eleven months ago.

Mr. Guajardo enclosed a notice indicating that he served the INS with the letter on July 29,1994. Thus, the portion of our order that directs the clerk “to furnish the Immigration and Naturalization Service with a copy” of the letter is a fig leaf, and a small one at that. We know very well that the INS has had Mr. Guajardo’s letter plenty long enough to respond if it eared to do so. Apparently dissatisfied with the INS’ entirely proper decision not to counter Mr. Guajar-do’s rogue correspondence, my colleagues now seek to prod the INS into taking some action.

What is the INS to deduce from all this? The most plausible inference is that one or more of the judges on the panel has…

36 F.3d 83 Rigoberto YEPES-PRADO, Petitioner, v. U.S. IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE, Respondent. No. 91-70114. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Oct. 3, 1994. Before: FERGUSON, REINHARDT, and KOZINSKI, Circuit Judges. 1 Concurrence by Judge FERGUSON; Concurrence by Judge REINHARDT; Dissent by Judge KOZINSKI. ORDER 2 The Clerk is directed to furnish the Immigration and Naturalization Service with a copy of counsel's letter of July 28, 1994, and to inquire in writing whether the Service wishes to respond to or comment upon the letter. 3 FERGUSON, Circuit Judge, explaining a silly affair: 4 Judge Kozinski's dissent requires an explanation about the brief order of the majority. 5 In November of 1993, the panel in this case issued its amended opinion, Yepes-Prado v. INS, 10 F.3d 1363 (9th Cir.1993), vacating the denial by the Board of Immigration Appeals of Yepes-Prado's petition for a discretionary waiver of deportation, and remanding the matter back to the Board for further proceedings consistent with the opinion. 6 Recently Mr. Martin Resendez Guajardo, the attorney for Mr. Yepes-Prado, sent a letter to the Clerk of this Court seeking guidance of the Court on…