Unpublished Disposition, 845 F.2d 1029 (9th Cir. 1988)

Annotate this Case
US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit - 845 F.2d 1029 (9th Cir. 1988)

Guillermo MORANDO-ALVAREZ, Petitioner,v.IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE, Respondent.

No. 87-7125.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted March 16, 1987.April 21, 1988.

Before SNEED, CYNTHIA HOLCOMB HALL, and NOONAN, Circuit Judges.


MEMORANDUM* 

Petitioner, Guillermo Morando-Alvarez, seeks review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) refusal to overturn an Immigration Judge's (IJ) order of deportation. We affirm.

Petitioner's complaint is that the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) failed to notify petitioner's attorney of the deportation hearing and that, as a consequence, the hearing was held with neither the petitioner nor his attorney being present. The IJ found petitioner, in absentia, deportable. Petitioner seeks to have his case remanded to the IJ either for a full hearing on the merits or for a hearing on whether the notice of representation form was filed with the INS in a proper fashion.

The record contains no properly executed notice of representation. The only reference to such a document indicates that it should be sent to "7631 South Settler, Tucson, Arizona," the address to which the notice of the deportation proceedings was sent and to which the IJ's decision was sent and through, or at, which it was received by the petitioner.

On this record we perceive no basis for remanding this case for a hearing on whether a proper notice of representation was filed. There was no denial of the privilege to be represented by counsel; therefore, there is no duty on our part to order new deportation proceedings. See Comm. of Cent. American Refugees v. INS, 795 F.2d 1434, 1439 (9th Cir.), amended by 807 F.2d 769 (9th Cir. 1986).

AFFIRMED.

 *

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir.R. 36-3

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.