Solomon

Solomon v. Ashcroft

Good Law
19 F. App'x 725
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitOctober 4, 2001No. 00-70039; I & NS No. A76-643-665California605 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM ****

The Immigration and Nationality Act provides that “written notice [of removal proceedings] shall be given in person to the alien [o]r, if personal service is not practicable, through service by mail to the alien or to the alien’s counsel of record.” I.N.A. § 239(a)(1), 8 U.S.C. § 1229 (a)(1) (2000). We agree with the BIA that petitioner received proper notice under I.N.A. § 239(a)(1).

The BIA did not abuse its discretion by ignoring evidence in the record that allegedly showed that Solomon had changed his address with the INS before the Notice to Appear was issued. ‘We presume that a fact finder reviews all the evidence presented unless [it] explicitly expresses otherwise.” Larita-Martinez v. INS, 220 F.3d 1092, 1095 (9th Cir.2000) (quoting Medtronic, Inc. v. Daig Corp., 789 F.2d 903, 906 (Fed.Cir.1986)). Here, Solomon’s proffered evidence was an unsigned copy of a letter that he urged had been sent by his wife to the INS. He had no record of that agency’s receipt of a copy, and we have seen no such evidence in the record. In contrast, the INS had a clear record that petitioner’s last known address was given as that of his counsel. Petitioner’s argued evidence…

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.