By: dmc-admin//August 31, 2009//
Immigration
Notice
Where asylum applicants initiated the request for asylum, rather than raising it in response to removal proceedings, had never missed any prior deadlines, and promptly attempted to cure their default after failing to appear at a hearing, it was error for the IJ to refuse to consider their claim that they never received notice of the hearing.
"These facts, taken together, could be read to confirm the Dakajs' claim of non-receipt by establishing that they had a demonstrated commitment to the asylum process and a strong interest in setting forth their position in their brief to the Board. From this it could be inferred that if the Dakajs had known that an appellate brief was due on September 27, they would have filed one on or before that date. We do not hold that the Board was required to reach that conclusion; that determination is within the Board's province, at least in the first instance.
We do hold, however, that the Board was required to consider these relevant factors, along with any others of which it might be aware, and to explain its decision in light of them."
Petition Granted.
08-2554 Dakaj v. Holder
Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals, Per Curiam.