Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Macaspac v. INS, 4th Cir. (2002)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    7 views2 pages
    1) Amelia Sibug Macaspac, a citizen of the Philippines, petitioned for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' (BIA) denial of her motion to reopen removal proceedings. 2) The Fourth Circuit found that it did not have jurisdiction to consider Macaspac's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, as she failed to raise this issue with the BIA. 3) The Fourth Circuit also found that the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to reopen, as Macaspac failed to demonstrate prima facie eligibility for asylum. The court affirmed the BIA's order.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2002-10-29 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 02-1699

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    1) Amelia Sibug Macaspac, a citizen of the Philippines, petitioned for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' (BIA) denial of her motion to reopen removal proceedings. 2) The Fourth Circuit found that it did not have jurisdiction to consider Macaspac's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, as she failed to raise this issue with the BIA. 3) The Fourth Circuit also found that the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to reopen, as Macaspac failed to demonstrate prima facie eligibility for asylum. The court affirmed the BIA's order.

    Copyright:

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

    Macaspac v. INS, 4th Cir. (2002)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    1) Amelia Sibug Macaspac, a citizen of the Philippines, petitioned for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' (BIA) denial of her motion to reopen removal proceedings. 2) The Fourth Circuit found that it did not have jurisdiction to consider Macaspac's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, as she failed to raise this issue with the BIA. 3) The Fourth Circuit also found that the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to reopen, as Macaspac failed to demonstrate prima facie eligibility for asylum. The court affirmed the BIA's order.

    Copyright:

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

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    AMELIA SIBUG MACASPAC,


    Petitioner,
    v.
    U.S. IMMIGRATION & NATURALIZATION
    SERVICE; JOHN ASHCROFT, Attorney
    General,
    Respondents.

    No. 02-1699

    On Petition for Review of an Order of the


    Board of Immigration Appeals.
    (A72-513-082)
    Submitted: October 15, 2002
    Decided: October 29, 2002
    Before MICHAEL and KING, Circuit Judges, and
    HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    COUNSEL
    Amelia Sibug Macaspac, Petitioner Pro Se. George W. Maugans,
    IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE, Baltimore,
    Maryland; Allen Warren Hausman, Assistant Director, Emily Anne
    Radford, Blair Timothy OConnor, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondents.

    MACASPAC v. INS

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See


    Local Rule 36(c).

    OPINION
    PER CURIAM:
    Amelia Sibug Macaspac, a native and citizen of the Philippines,
    petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals
    (Board) affirming the Immigration Judges decision to deny her
    motion to reopen removal proceedings. Macaspac first contends that
    counsel was ineffective in failing to file an updated asylum application on her behalf by the deadline established by the Immigration
    Court. Because Macaspac failed to exhaust administrative remedies
    by raising this claim before the Board, we find that we are without
    jurisdiction to consider it in the context of this appeal. See Stewart v.
    INS, 181 F.3d 587, 596 (4th Cir. 1999); Bernal-Vallejo v. INS, 195
    F.3d 56, 64 (1st Cir. 1999); Farrokhi v. INS, 900 F.2d 697, 700 (4th
    Cir. 1990).
    Macaspac next asserts that the Board, in affirming the IJ, abused
    its discretion in declining to grant the motion to reopen due to Macaspacs failure to demonstrate prima facie eligibility for asylum. We
    have reviewed the administrative record and conclude that this finding does not amount to an abuse of discretion. M.A. v. INS, 899 F.2d
    304, 308 (4th Cir. 1990) (en banc); see 8 C.F.R. 3.2(a) (2002).
    We accordingly affirm the Boards order. We dispense with oral
    argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
    presented in the materials before the court and argument would not
    aid the decisional process.
    AFFIRMED

    You might also like