Kalaw

Kalaw v. Immigration & Naturalization Service

Good Law
133 F.3d 1147·97 Daily Journal DAR 14491·1997 U.S. App. LEXIS 33746·97 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 8943
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitDecember 1, 1997Nos. 97-70106, 97-70294, 97-70333California2,412 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Thomas, J.

In these consolidated petitions, we consider the effect of the transitional rules of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (“IIRIRA”) on our jurisdiction to review the Attorney General’s discretionary decisions regarding suspension of deportation. Because the transitional rules removed direct judicial review of discretionary decisions made by the Attorney General within the prescribed time limits, we dismiss the petitions for lack of jurisdiction.

I

, Prior, to passage of IIRIRA, 1 parties who wished to appeal any decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) would file a petition for, review in the court of appeals for the circuit in. which the administrative proceedings had been held. See Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”) § 106(a) (formerly codified at 8 U.S.C. § 1105a).

IIRIRA dramatically altered this court’s jurisdiction to review final deportation and exclusion orders. It introduced sweeping changes into our immigration laws, including the specific repeal of the judicial review procedures previously provided under INA § 106. IIRIRA’s replacement section for judicial review, new INA § 242, purports to vest the BIA with final…

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.