RAFAEL H. LOPEZ, PETITIONER,
v.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE, RESPONDENT
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that a petition for review of a deportation order filed more than six months after the order became final is untimely, but a timely petition for review of the denial of a motion to reconsider may be considered.
Petitioner sought review of a deportation order filed more than two years after it became final. Petitioner had previously filed a motion to reconside…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Motion For Reconsideration cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
Upon its face this appeal is a petition to review an order of deportation filed more than two years after that order became final. Our jurisdiction is limited to review upon petitions “filed not later than six months from the date of the final deportation order * * 8 U.S.C. § 1105a(a) (1). Therefore, on its face the petition asks that we exceed our statutory authority.
However, the record also shows that more than six months after the filing of the final order of deportation the petitioner filed a motion to reconsider the deportation order. A hearing was granted upon that motion and the motion was denied less than six months before this petition for review was filed. Therefore, we also consider this petition as one for review of the denial of reconsideration.
It appears that nothing was presented or urged by the petitioner in support of his motion for reconsideration that was not known and available to him at the hearing which resulted in the order of deportation. All of the circumstances considered, we cannot say that the denial of reconsideration was an abuse of discretion.
The order denying the motion for reconsideration will be affirmed.