Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Anthony J. Rankine v. United States Immigration & Naturalization Service, 914 F.2d 248, 4th Cir. (1990)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    1 views2 pages
    Anthony Rankine petitions for review of a decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals to summarily dismiss his appeal of a deportation order. The Board dismissed the appeal because Rankine only provided conclusory reasons for overturning the immigration judge's decision in his notice of appeal and failed to file a brief to further explain his position. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the Board's decision, finding the summary dismissal was appropriate under the circumstances.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1990-10-16 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Citations: 914 F.2d 248 Docket: 89-1058

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Anthony Rankine petitions for review of a decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals to summarily dismiss his appeal of a deportation order. The Board dismissed the appeal because Rankine only provided conclusory reasons for overturning the immigration judge's decision in his notice of appeal and failed to file a brief to further explain his position. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the Board's decision, finding the summary dismissal was appropriate under the circumstances.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    1 views2 pages

    Anthony J. Rankine v. United States Immigration & Naturalization Service, 914 F.2d 248, 4th Cir. (1990)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Anthony Rankine petitions for review of a decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals to summarily dismiss his appeal of a deportation order. The Board dismissed the appeal because Rankine only provided conclusory reasons for overturning the immigration judge's decision in his notice of appeal and failed to file a brief to further explain his position. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the Board's decision, finding the summary dismissal was appropriate under the circumstances.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 2

    914 F.

    2d 248
    Unpublished Disposition

    NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of


    unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing
    res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires
    service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth
    Circuit.
    Anthony J. RANKINE, Petitioner,
    v.
    UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION & NATURALIZATION
    SERVICE, Respondent.
    No. 89-1058.

    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.


    Submitted June 20, 1990.
    Decided Sept. 20, 1990.
    Rehearing and Rehearing In Banc Denied Oct. 16, 1990.

    On Petition for Review of an Order of the Immigration and Naturalization


    Service. ( Axa-skk-mre)
    Anthony J. Rankine, petitioner pro se.
    Donald E. Keener, Robert Leigh Bombaugh, Stewart Deutsch, David John
    Kline, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of
    Justice, Washington, D.C., William Kummings, Immigration and
    Naturalization Service, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
    I.N.S.
    AFFIRMED.
    PER CURIAM:

    Anthony J. Rankine petitions for review of a decision by the Board of


    Immigration Appeals. Pursuant to 8 C.F.R. Sec. 3.1(d)(1-a)(i), the Board

    summarily dismissed Rankine's appeal of an immigration judge's order that he


    be deported. In his notice of appeal to the Board, Rankine identified only
    conclusory reasons that would justify the Board's overturning the immigration
    judge's decision. Further, Rankine failed to file with the Board a brief in which
    he might have set forth his position in detail. Under these circumstances, the
    summary dismissal of his appeal was entirely appropriate. See AthehortuaVanegas v. INS, 876 F.2d 238, 240-41 (1st Cir.1989). As the dispositive issue
    recently has been decided authoritatively, we dispense with oral argument. The
    decision of the Board is affirmed.*
    2

    AFFIRMED.

    Any allegations concerning counsel's performance rendering the proceedings


    fundamentally unfair should be raised in a motion to reopen and for stay of
    deportation filed with the Board. See Lozada v. INS, 8576 F.2d 10 (1st
    Cir.1988); Matter of Lozada, Interim Decision No. 3059 (BIA Apr. 13, 1988)

    You might also like