Unpublished Disposition, 922 F.2d 845 (9th Cir. 1991)Annotate this Case
Adolf Collado SAN ANTONIO, Petitioner,v.UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE, Respondent.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Jan. 8, 1991.
Before SKOPIL, BEEZER and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.
Petitioner Adolf San Antonio seeks review of an order of deportation issued by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA). His sole contention is that the BIA failed to conclude that a telephonic hearing conducted in this case by an Immigration Judge (IJ) was statutorily prohibited. We reject that contention and affirm the BIA's decision.
We have previously determined that "telephonic hearings by an IJ, absent consent of the parties, ... are not authorized by statute." Purba v. Immigration & Naturalization Service, 884 F.2d 516, 518 (9th Cir. 1989) (emphasis added). In his brief before this court, San Antonio admits that he "did not object to the telephonic hearing but rather, through counsel, consented to the procedure." The record fully supports that admission.
San Antonio nevertheless contends that his right to a personal hearing before the IJ cannot be waived because it is jurisdictional. We disagree. The relevant statute, 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b) (1988), is jurisdictional only insofar as it vests an IJ with authority to conduct administrative deportation hearings. The manner in which such hearings are conducted is procedural. See Purba, 884 F.2d at 517 (alien has "statutory procedural rights to a hearing in the physical presence of the IJ"). We have already determined that the statutory procedural right to a personal hearing before an IJ can be waived. Id. at 517-18.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3