USCA1 Opinion

April 2, 1992

[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

___________________
No. 91-2234

NEVILLE CAMERON,
Petitioner,
v.
IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICES,
Respondent.
____________________
ON PETITION FOR REVIEW OF AN ORDER
OF THE BOARD OF IMMIGRATION APPEALS
__________________
Before
Breyer, Chief Judge,
___________
Selya and Cyr, Circuit Judges.
______________
___________________
Neville E.A. Cameron on Motion in Opposition thereto.

____________________
Stuart M.
Gerson, Assistant Attorney
General, Robert
___________________
______
Kendall, Jr., Assistant Director, and Charles E. Pazar, Office of
____________
________________
Immigration Litigation, Civil Division, Department of Justice, on
Motion to Summarily Dispose of Petition for Review.

__________________
__________________

Per Curiam.
___________
disposition
order

of this

entered

hearing.

The

We

I.N.S.

petition

after

the

moved

for review

petitioner

conclude

has

failed

deportation

for

of a
to

summary

deportation

appear

order

for

should

be

with a notice

to

summarily affirmed.
I.
In June

1989, petitioner

show cause why

1251(a)(4)

he should

(1988)

was served

not be deported

(authorizing

under 8 U.S.C.

deportation

of

an

alien

convicted of a crime of moral turpitude committed within five

years

after

entry and

sentenced to

prison

for a

year or

more).
of

The notice alleged that petitioner had been convicted

burning a dwelling house

and had been

sentenced to five

years in prison.
Initially,
Stickney, whom

petitioner
he

retained

was

represented

in March

by

1990.

Attorney

After

months, however, Attorney Stickney moved to withdraw

three
stating

that petitioner had failed to appear for appointments, answer

phone messages,

or respond to a

immediate contact.
scheduled
lawyer,
which

for July
Attorney

Attorney Visram

After several continuances, a hearing was

10,

1990.

Visram, asked

was granted.

certified letter requesting

At

On

that day,

for

the next hearing

appeared (petitioner

withdraw, stating

that petitioner

petitioner's

further continuance
(August 14, 1990),

did not) and

had failed to

moved to
appear for

-2-

appointments and had failed to appear for the present hearing

despite promising to do so.
to

represent him.

Counsel

deportation hearing then

Consequently, counsel was unable

was allowed

to withdraw.

proceeded in petitioner's

The

absence.

The

government

introduced

documentation

showing

petitioner had entered the country on October 26,

he had been convicted
1987,

for burning a dwelling on

and that he had received a

offense.

The

that

1982, that
October 17,

five year sentence for the

immigration judge

concluded

petitioner

was

deportable and ordered him deported to Jamaica.

Petitioner appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals.
He contended that he had not appeared at the
hearing

because of

Visram's secretary
secretary

an ulcer

attack, had

of the problem,

that Attorney

Visram

August 14, 1990

notified Attorney

had been assured

would appear

by the

and obtain

continuance, and had later spoken with Visram only to be told

that Visram's refusal to

represent petitioner was because of

nonpayment of a bill.
The Board
present,

concluded that

the immigration

deportation

hearing in

appear at the hearing.

under the circumstances

judge had

properly conducted

absentia when
8 U.S.C.

petitioner failed

then
the
to

1252(b) (if alien fails to

attend a hearing without reasonable cause, the proceeding may

be conducted
allegations of

in

his

absence).

an ulcer attack and

-3-

As

for

petitioner's

new

counsel malfeasance, the

Board noted that

petitioner could have

deportation proceeding
facts.

A motion to

affidavits

or

in

order to

moved to reopen

establish

reopen, however, must

other

documentary

Board decided

permit petitioner

to attempt to establish

reasons.

First, petitioner

allegations by affidavit
petitioner's
complaints

from

not

spoken to

but

two

cooperate.

C.F.R.
order to

the alleged facts

had not supported

or documentary

one

remand in

evidence.

credibility was suspect.

petitioner's failure to
having

not to

alleged

be "supported by

evidence."

103.5(a)(2).1 The

for two

the

his

Second,

The record disclosed

separate

counsel

Petitioner's

counsel's secretary

the

prior to

of

account of
the hearing

directly contradicted counsel's statement at the hearing that

counsel had been unable to

communicate with petitioner.

The

Board dismissed petitioner's appeal.

II.
Petitioner's

two fold

response

in this

court to

the

I.N.S.'s motion for summary disposition was to state that his

petition for review was timely filed and to ask for more time
for briefing

in view

of family problems

and incarceration.

____________________
1.

The regulation reads as follows:

(2) Requirements for motion to reopen.
_________________________________
motion to reopen must -

(i) State the new facts to be

proved
at
the
reopened
proceedings, and
(ii) Be supported by affidavits
or other documentary evidence.
-4-

He

has failed to even hint, however, at any viable challenge

to the deportation order, and we see none.

regulatory provisions
judge

was

are straightforward.

authorized

petitioner's

to

absence, 8

hold

and

reasonable

cause

hearing.

deportation
1252(b),

failed

failure

Cf. Ghosh v.
___ _____

The immigration
hearing

deportation was

to

adequately
attend

to

the

Attorney General, 629

________________

not

reopen deportation proceedings when

supported by

materials.").

proper

In these

affidavits

or

other

document

deportation
F.2d 987, 989

(4th Cir. 1980) ("It is not an abuse of discretion

motion to

in

1251(a)(4) (1988) on the evidence

petitioner
for

U.S.C.

authorized under 8 U.S.C.

presented,

The statutory and

to deny a

the motion is
evidentiary

circumstances, we affirm the Board's

order and deny petitioner's request for more time to respond.

Affirmed.
________

-5-