Chorine

Chorine v. Ashcroft

Good Law
72 F. App'x 568
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJuly 28, 2003No. 02-72104; Agency Nos. A70-967-706, A70-967-708California386 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM *

Petitioners, Alexei Chorine and his daughter Daniela Chorine, petition for review of a final order of the Board of Immigration Appeals affirming an order of deportation entered in immigration court. Because the BIA issued its decision atter October 31, 1996, and the Chorines’ deportation proceedings began prior to April 1, 1997, this court has jurisdiction under IIR-IRA’s transitional rules. See Kalaw v. INS, 133 F.3d 1147, 1150 (9th Cir.1997). We deny the petition for review.

Because the parties are familiar with the facts, we will not recount them in detail except as necessary.

Petitioners claim that the Immigration and Naturalization Service failed to prove petitioners’ alienage by clear, convincing and unequivocal evidence. “In deportation proceedings, the INS has the burden of establishing the facts supporting deportability by clear, unequivocal, and convincing evidence. Evidence of foreign birth, however, gives rise to a rebuttable presumption of alienage, and the burden then shifts to the petitioner to prove citizenship.” Scales v. INS, 232 F.3d 1159, 1163 (9th Cir.2000) (internal citations and quotations omitted). In this case there was undisputed 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.