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

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
_______________
m 97-60361
_______________
MICHEL YOUSSEF AYOUB,
Petitioner,
VERSUS
IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE,
Respondent.
_________________________
Petition for Review of an Order of
the Board of Immigration Appeals
_________________________
August 25, 2000
Before SMITH and DENNIS, Circuit
by more than ten years while he filed various
Judges, and ROETTGER,* District Judge.
papers delaying his deportation. He makes
one more such attempt, arguing that the Board
PER CURIAM:
of Immigration Appeals ("BIA") erred in con-
cluding that the issuance of an order to show
Michel Ayoub, a citizen of Lebanon, had
cause tolled the period for calculating his con-
overstayed his visa to live in the United States
tinuous physical presence. He contends that,
under § 309(c)(5)(A) of the Illegal
Immigration Reform and Immigrant Re-
*
sponsibility Act ("IIRIRA"), the tolling
District Judge of the Southern District of
provision in INA § 240A(d)(1) applies only if
Florida, sitting by designation.

the alien is requesting cancellation of removal.
challenged by the rather perfunctory appeal
Inasmuch as he is seeking suspension of
submitted in this instance, persuades us and
deportation, Ayoub argues, the issuance of an
conclusively answers the only question raised
order to show cause did not interrupt his
by this petition for review.
physical presence in this country.
The petition for review is DENIED, and the
We have recently explained, in dictum, as
order of the BIA is AFFIRMED.
follows:
Initially, § 304(a)'s use of the term
"notice to appear" created potential con-
fusion, because it was uncertain whether
this stop-time provision also applied to
orders to show cause. But the BIA in-
terpreted the new phrase to include
pre-IIRIRA show-cause orders, and, in
1997, Congress eliminated any
remaining confusion: It enacted the
Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central
American Relief Act ("NACARA"),
which included a clarifying amendment
to the IIRIRA's stop-time rule,
replacing "notices to appear" with
"orders to show cause." See NACARA
§ 203(a), Pub. L. No. 105-100, 111
Stat. 2160, 2196.
Gonzalez-Torres v. INS, 213 F.3d 899, 902
(5th Cir. 2000). This statement conforms to
the understanding of other circuits and reflects
the BIA's interpretation.1
Dictum can be persuasive authority. See
Society of Separationists, Inc. v. Herman, 939
F.2d 1207, 1211 (5th Cir. 1991). This dictum,
bolstered by other circuits and but nominally
1 See Appiah v. INS, 202 F.3d 704, 708-09 (4th
Cir. 2000), petition for cert. filed (June 15, 2000)
(No. 99-10039); Tefel v. Reno, 180 F.3d 1286,
1293 (11th Cir. 1999), cert. denied, 120 S. Ct.
2657 (2000); In re Nolasco-Tofino, Int. Dec. 3385
(BIA 1999).
2