Opinion ID: 533784
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: What's in Store for Dor?

Text: 20 Dor has vigorously cultivated every avenue of relief open to him: he has sought clemency from the Governor of New York, pursued repeated appeals of his adjustment application to the AAU, tried new motions to reopen his deportation proceedings with the BIA, endeavored to have his felony conviction expunged in the New York state court, and now appeals a petition for habeas corpus and injunctive relief. While the zeal and diligence of his pro bono publico attorney is to be commended, we must recognize that Dor has yet to successfully convince the administrative bodies of the INS that he should be able to remain in the United States. Satisfaction of Our Stay 21 As we stated, supra, on January 20th, 1987, the length of stay of our mandate was modified to extend the stay from 21 days to until such time as the Immigration and Naturalization Service adjudicates the applications for relief from deportation by adjustment of status to lawful permanent resident status under [IRCA § 202] (event 15). 11 Although the terms of our stay are not directly raised on this appeal of a habeas petition, this Court having found the district court's decision unqualifiedly correct is faced with a problem: what happens now? Obviously, this Court has full authority to vacate a stay of its own mandate. See Miller v. Aaacon Auto Transport, Inc., 545 F.2d 1019, 1020 (5th Cir.1977), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 918, 101 S.Ct. 315, 66 L.Ed.2d 145 (1980). 22 In its June 12, 1989 decision, the AAU held that the sole issue in the proceeding is whether [Dor] is statutorily ineligible for [adjustment of status under subparagraph (a)(3) of § 202 of IRCA]. (event 24) This provision, the AAU observed, bars the adjustment of any alien if the Attorney General determines that the alien, having been convicted by a final judgment of a particularly serious crime, constitutes a danger to the community of the United States. The AAU then cited immigration cases as authority that (i) manslaughter in the first degree is a particularly serious crime, and (ii) no separate determination of dangerousness is necessary once a determination is made that an individual has been convicted of a particularly serious crime. See, e.g., Matter of Frentescu, 18 I & N Dec. 244 (BIA 1982), and Matter of Carballe, I.D. 3007 (BIA 1986). 23 Dor's motion to reopen before the AAU (event 25) offered two new facts: (i) the BIA decision dismissing Dor's appeal of the District Director's denial of request for custody redetermination (event 35); and (ii) a copy of the motion filed with the BIA requesting it to reopen Dor's deportation proceedings (event 9). Finding neither fact material, the AAU concluded: The [BIA's] decision relating to the custody of the applicant and counsel's motion to reopen deportation proceedings are not pertinent to the matter of the applicant's ineligibility for the benefit sought as neither affects the finding that the applicant is statutorily ineligible for adjustment of status. 12 (event 26) In light of these final administrative decisions, we find that Dor's application for adjustment of status has been sufficiently adjudicated. Accordingly, our stay is hereby vacated. The stayed mandate should issue forthwith, and the mandate affirming the instant appeal should issue forthwith. 24 AFFIRMED. 25 STAY VACATED. 26 APPENDIX DOR TIMELINE Event Date Event No. Deportation Proceedings 1. 12/08- INS institutes deportation proceedings against Dor on the /82 grounds that he entered the United States illegally. 2. 3/12/- Deportation hearing held before Immigration Judge, who 85 concludes that Dor is deportable. 3. 04/30- Dor concedes his deportability, but applies for asylum and a /85 stay of deportation. The Immigration Judge denies both of these requests. The Immigration Judge orders Dor deported and concludes that Dor, having been convicted of a particularly serious crime ... constitutes a danger to the community of the United States, and thus is statutorily ineligible for withholding of deportation and not worthy of the favorable exercise of discretion to be granted asylum. 4. 08/20- BIA upholds Immigration Judge order of 4/30/85, citing same /85 reasons as the Immigration Judge for disallowing asylum and a stay of deportation. 5. 08/29- Dor files petition to review BIA action of 8/20/85 in this /85 Court. 6. 10/29- Petition for review of 8/29/85 is withdrawn with prejudice. /85 Dor loses right to appeal BIA decision of 8/20/85 before this Court (effective 12/31/85). 7. 7/3/86 BIA denies Dor's motion to reopen and reconsider its 8/20/85 decision. Dor's reliance on the New York State Certificate of Relief from Disabilities (issued 12/20/85), is misplaced, according to the BIA, because it has no legal effect on the finding of deportability. 8. 12/24- This Court upholds, the BIA's 7/3/86 decision denying Dor's /86 motion for reconsideration. Pursuant to Fed.R.App.P. 41(a), Dor is given 21 days before the mandate of this Court is carried out ordering Dor deported. 9. 6/23/- Dor files motion with the BIA to reopen his deportation 89 proceedings for the express purpose of remanding the matter to the Immigration Judge, for a hearing and a reconsideration of BIA's earlier order on whether Dor is an alien described in § 243(h)(2)(b). 10. 10/11- BIA hears oral argument on Dor's motion to reopen and /89 reconsider his deportation proceedings. 11. 11/2/- BIA denies Dor's motion of 6/23/89 to reopen deportation 89 proceedings. Adjustment of Status Proceedings 12. 11/06- Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) enacted. /86 13. 01/13- Dor moves this Court to stay its mandate until INS /87 adjudicates his applications for relief, in light of the passage of IRCA. (First time IRCA is raised in Dor's proceedings). 14. 1/15/- Dor files his adjustment application with the District 87 Director. 15. 01/20- This Court grants Dor's motion of 1/13/87, staying Dor's /87 deportation pending final adjudication of his application for adjustment of status as a Cuban/Haitian entrant under the provision of section 202 of IRCA. 16. 01/28- INS moves to vacate the stay by this Court. /87 17. 1/29/- Dor's adjustment application is denied by the District 87 Director. Dor appeals to the AAU. 18. 2/9/87 This Court denies the INS's motion, to vacate its 1/20/87 order staying Dor's deportation. Consequently, stay issued on 1/20/87 remains in effect. 19. 10/16- AAU refers case back to District Director for decision on the /87 merits. 20. 12/07- District Director denies, without a hearing, Dor's application /87 on 10/16/87 remand from the AAU. 21. 12/28- Dor appeals the 12/07/87 decision to the AAU. /87 22. 1/23/- After a hearing, the District Director again denies Dor's 89 adjustment application. In its decision, the District Director cites the 4/30/85 decision of the Immigration Judge finding Dor an alien under § 243(h)(2)(b), the 12/24/86 decision of this Court that specifically pointed out the Immigration Judge's 4/30/85 finding, and the 9/30/88 decision of the District Court dismissing Dor's petition for a writ of habeas corpus based on what it called the incontrovertible finding that Dor was an alien described in § 243(h)(2)(b). 23. 4/6/89 Oral argument granted before the AAU. 24. 06/12- AAU affirms the District Director decision of 1/23/89. /89 25. 08/04- Dor files motion seeking AAU reconsideration and reopening of /89 its 6/12/89 opinion. 26. 9/18/- AAU denies Dor's 8/4/89 motion to reopen and reconsider his 89 Cuban Haitian adjustment application. Custody/Habeas Proceedings 27. 5/20/- Dor released by New York into INS custody. 84 28. 7/2/86 Dor requests that the District Director set conditions for his release. 29. 10/3/- District Director, pursuant to Dor's 7/2/86 request, 86 reinstates bond in this case in the amount of $20,000. Dor does not post bond and remains in custody. 30. 12/31- District Director again revokes Dor's bond and orders him /86 detained in Service custody. 31. 8/19/- Dor files a petition for a writ of habeas corpus (for release 88 from custody while INS process continues) in U.S. District Court. 32. 9/29/- District Court denies Dor's habeas corpus claims. Dor Appeals 88 to this Court. 33. 10/4/- Dor requests the District Director for a reconsideration of 88 his custody status. 34. 10/26- District Director denies Dor's 10/4/88 request for /88 reconsideration. District Director concludes in its denial that the basis of the request, i.e., the AAU's interest in the case, was severely diminished by the 9/29/88 dismissal of the respondent's petition for a writ of habeas corpus by _ the District Court. Specifically, the District Director emphasized the District Court's finding that the INS detention of Dor was not an abuse of discretion. In addition, the District Director finds significant the District Court's consideration of the respondent's eligibility for adjustment of status as a Cuban/Haitian entrant and its conclusion that the respondent's appeal from the denial of his application was not likely to succeed. Dor ordered to remain detained without bond. 35. 4/26/- BIA affirms the District Director's 10/26/88 denial of Dor's 89 request for redetermination of his custody status. BIA asserts lack of jurisdiction over all issues raised with regard to Dor's Cuban Haitian adjustment application. BIA limits its inquiry on appeal to a review of the custody determination of the District Director as it relates to the necessity for and the appropriate amount of bond to ensure Dor's availability for deportation. Upon consideration of the facts and evidence presented in this particular case, the BIA concludes that Dor is a substantial bail risk and that he should not be released from INS custody. Other Proceedings 36. 1972 Dor enters the United States without valid entry documents. 37. 11/17- Dor sentenced to a New York prison term of 515 years for /78 first-degree manslaughter. 38. 6/1/88 Dor's motion to vacate his felony conviction is denied by the New York State Supreme Court, Kings County. 39. 6/19/- Dor's request for executive clemency is denied by the New York 88 Executive Clemency Bureau. 40. 7/5/88 Dor files a motion before the Appellate Division for a certificate granting leave to appeal the 6/1/88 denial by the New York State Supreme Court, Kings County.