Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility

00-3138 Buzdygan v. INS

By: dmc-admin//August 13, 2001//

00-3138 Buzdygan v. INS

By: dmc-admin//August 13, 2001//

Listen to this article

“Section 3.43 of Title 8 of the Code of Federal Regulations explains that an alien’s motion to reopen proceedings pursuant to NACARA must establish that the individual meets four specific requirements. While Buzdygan meets three of these four requirements, we find that he cannot establish that he ‘was or would be’ rendered ineligible to be granted suspension of deportation because of the implementation and application of the stop time rule. 8 C.F.R. sec. 3.43(b)(2). Regardless of the fact that sec. 203(a)(1) exempts Buzdygan, a Polish national, from having the stop time rule applied to his case, it is clear that the implementation of the stop time rule had no affect on Buzdygan’s ability to satisfy the seven-year continuous presence requirement. It is undisputed that Buzdygan has been continuously present in the United States since May of 1985. Thus, it was of no consequence whether the period of time for which Buzdygan was continuously present in the United States was measured from when he was served with an Order to Show Cause in February of 1997, pursuant to the stop time rule, or from when he applied for a suspension of deportation at his hearing before the immigration judge in October of 1997, pursuant to the pre-IIRIRA rule.”

Affirmed.

Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals, Kanne, J.

Polls

Should Steven Avery be granted a new evidentiary hearing?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Legal News

See All Legal News

WLJ People

Sea all WLJ People

Opinion Digests