Mauting

Mauting v. Immigration & Naturalization Service

Good Law
16 F. App'x 788
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitAugust 15, 2001INS No. A28-965-302California1,545 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

ORDER

Submission of this case was deferred to allow the parties to consider settlement. Having been advised that the parties were not able to achieve accord, the Court orders this petition for review resubmitted as of the date of the filing of this order.

MEMORANDUM

Anthony Apasen Mauting and his brother, Remigio Apasen Mauting (“the Mautings”) seek review of a final order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) affirming an immigration judge (“IJ”) decision denying them derivative adjustment of status. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1105a(a)(l) (1996). 3 Because petitioners have alleged a colorable claim of estoppel against the government, but an insufficient factual record exists for evaluating that claim, we transfer this case to a district court in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1631 for further consideration in the form of a habeas action.

I

Following her engagement to American citizen Allan Cecil, Simona Mauting and her three sons — who were natives and citizens of the Philippines — entered the United States on January 20, 1998, using valid “K-l” and “K-2” nonimmigrant visas pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1101 (a)(15)(K) (1996); see also 8 U.S.C. § 1184 (d) (1996); 8…

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.