Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-qxdb6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-27T08:05:55.111Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit: Kamalthas V. Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS)*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 May 2017

Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Judicial and Similar Proceedings
Information
International Legal Materials , Volume 41 , Issue 1 , January 2002 , pp. 144 - 148
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 2002

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

251 F.3d 1279 (2001).

References

Endnotes

1 The Honorable Samuel P. King, Senior United States District Judge for the District of Hawaii, sitting by designation.

2 Technically, § 2242(d) only provides for judicial review of claims raised under the Convention “as part of a final order of removal“ under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. This language is reiterated in 8 C.F.R. § 208.18(e). However, inKhourassany, the INS represented (and we agreed) that the denial of a motion to reopen to consider a claim based on the Convention constitutes a “final removal order” and is “thus separately subject to judicial review under the Foreign Affairs Reform Act and its implementing regulations.”Khourassany, 208 F.3d at 1100.

3 These regulations state that“[t]he decision to grant or deny a motion to reopen or reconsider is within the discretion of the Board, subject to the restrictions of this section. The Board has discretion to deny a motion to reopen even if the party moving has made out a pronefacie case for relief.” 8 C.F.R. § 3.2(a) (2000).