Fifth Circuit Court Cases - Case Law and Opinions from the 5th Circuit Federal Court - Court of Appeals

	ROMINGER LEGAL
		Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals Opinions - 5th Circuit
					Need Legal Help?
					Need Legal Help?
LEGAL RESEARCH CENTER
LEGAL RESEARCH CENTER			LEGAL HEADLINES - CASE LAW - LEGAL FORMS	NOT FINDING WHAT YOU NEED? -CLICK HERE

This opinion or court case is from the Fifth Circuit Court or Appeals. Search our site for more cases - CLICK HERE

LEGAL RESEARCH

COURT REPORTERS

PRIVATE INVESTIGATORS

PROCESS SERVERS

DOCUMENT RETRIEVERS

EXPERT WITNESSES

Find a Private Investigator

Find an Expert Witness

Find a Process Server

Case Law - save on Lexis / WestLaw.

Legal News - Legal Headlines

United States Court of Appeals,
Fifth Circuit.
No. 92-4643.
Juan Jose VERDUZCO-AREVALO, Petitioner,
v.
IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE, Respondent.
April 27, 1993.
Petition for Review of an Order of the Immigration and Naturalization Service.
Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, KING and DUHÉ, Circuit Judges.
POLITZ, Chief Judge:
Denied a waiver of deportation by an immigration judge, Juan Jose Verduzco-Arevalo seeks
review of the summary dismissal of his appeal by the Board of Immigration Appeals. Finding an
abuse of discretion, we grant the petition, reverse the BIA's summary dismissal, and remand the
appeal to the BIA for consideration of the merits.
Background
Verduzco, a Mexican national, was admitted to the United States as a lawful permanent
resident in 1963. He married and had five children, all born in the United States. In October 1986
he was arrested for possession of cocaine. According to Verduzco, the charge stemmed from an
incident in which an undercover agent invited him to sniff cocaine. He pled guilty to a violation of
21 U.S.C. § 844(a). The conviction subjected him to deportation under section 241(a) of the
Immigration and Nationality Act1 and in due course deportation was ordered. Verduzco sought a
discretionary waiver of deportation pursuant to section 212(c) of the Act,2 which was denied after
hearing by an immigration judge. He timely appealed the denial to the BIA. The BIA summarily
dismissed Verduzco's appeal on the grounds that he had failed to specify its basis.3 Verduzco timely
18 U.S.C. § 1251(a).
28 U.S.C. § 1182(c).
3See 8 C.F.R. § 3.1(d)(1-a)(i).

petitioned for review.
Analysis
This appeal is governed by our decision in Medrano-Villatoro v. I.N.S.4 There, we stated that
an appeal to the BIA
must inform the BIA what was wrong about the immigration judge's decision and why. The
statement must specify whether the petitioner challenges erroneous findings of fact or law,
or both. If a question of law is presented, supporting authority must be cited; and if the
dispute is on the facts, the particular details at issue must be identified. Moreover, if the
denial of discretionary relief is in question, the statement of reasons must disclose whether the
alleged error relates to grounds of statutory eligibility or the exercise of discretion. Although
[a] petitioner could ... set out his reasons for appeal at greater length in a brief or separate
written statement, he [is] not required to do so. Nor [is] he required to fully argue his
position in his notice of appeal.5
The grounds supplied in Verduzco's notice of appeal satisfy the threshold standards approved in
Medrano. Verduzco has adequately specified his basis for appeal. The BIA erred in ruling
otherwise.6
PETITION GRANTED, JUDGMENT REVERSED, AND CASE REMANDED.

4866 F.2d 132 (5th Cir.1989).
5866 F.2d at 133-34 (internal citations omitted).
6We express no opinion as to the merits of Verduzco's appeal. Townsend v. I.N.S., 799 F.2d
179 (5th Cir.1986).