From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Zerafat v. Mukasey

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Jul 11, 2008
No. 04-72828 (9th Cir. Jul. 11, 2008)

Opinion

No. 04-72828.

Submitted June 18, 2008.

The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed.R.App.P. 34(a)(2).

July 11, 2008.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Agency No. A41-708-245.

Before: REINHARDT, W. FLETCHER, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.


MEMORANDUM

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.


Jamshid Zerafat, a native and citizen of Iran, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order summarily affirming an immigration judge's ("IJ") decision denying his application under 8 U.S.C. § 1186a(c)(4)(B) for a waiver of the requirement that he and his wife file a joint petition to remove the conditional status of his lawful permanent residence. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We grant the petition for review.

Zerafat contends that the IJ violated his due process rights by aggressively examining him. Although Zerafat raised this claim before the BIA, the BIA failed to address it. We therefore remand for further proceedings. See Montes-Lopez v. Gonzales, 486 F.3d 1163, 1165 (9th Cir. 2007) ("When a petitioner raises a claim based on a purported procedural defect of the proceedings before the IJ, the only administrative entity capable of independently addressing that claim is the BIA."); see also INS v. Ventura, 537 U.S. 12, 16-18 (2002) (per curiam).

In light of our disposition, we decline to reach the issue of Zerafat's eligibility for a good faith marriage waiver.

PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED; REMANDED.


Summaries of

Zerafat v. Mukasey

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Jul 11, 2008
No. 04-72828 (9th Cir. Jul. 11, 2008)
Case details for

Zerafat v. Mukasey

Case Details

Full title:JAMSHID ZERAFAT, Petitioner, v. MICHAEL B. MUKASEY, Attorney General…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Date published: Jul 11, 2008

Citations

No. 04-72828 (9th Cir. Jul. 11, 2008)