|
.jpg)
Recent Similar Articles |
US COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT: PETITIONER’S OPPOSITION TO RESPONDENT’S OPPOSITION
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Civil Appeal No. 09-1610 IN REMOVAL PROCEEDINGS
1. 97-446-370 – OFUME, PHILLIP CHUKWUMA
_____________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________ PETITIONER’S OPPOSITION TO RESPONDENT’S OPPOSITION TO LEAD PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A SEPARATE VOLUME OF ADDENDUM CONTAINING SEALED DOCUMENTS ____________________________________________________________ Petitioner afore-listed opposes Respondent’s Opposition brought under Immigration and 1 Ofume v. Eric H. Holder - Civil Appeal No. 09-1610 -Opposition Nationality Act ("INA")§ 242(b) (4)(A), 8 U.S.C. §1252(b)(4)(A)(2000) , requesting this Honourable Court to disallow Petitioner’s Motion for Leave to File a Separate Volume of Addendum containing SEALED DOCUMENTS without showing any good cause as to why the Separate Volume of Addendum containing SEALED DOCUMENTS is necessary and unnecessary. Bitter taste of citing Immigration and Nationality Act ("INA")§ 242(b) (4)(A), 8 U.S.C. §1252(b)(4)(A)(2000) in US judicial system is vastly located in the case of Castro-Cortez v. INS, the 9th Circuit Court of appeals. Immigration and Nationality Act ("INA")§ 242(b) (4)(A), 8 U.S.C. §1252(b)(4)(A)(2000) is used to downside US judicial system, due process rights, civil liberties and rule of law. One of the bitter toasts is (Castro-Cortez v. INS, the 9th Circuit Court of appeals pages 930 - 934) , ‘An Alien can not receive a full and fair hearing unless he has the right to place his information into the administrative Record.” See Gretachew, 25 F.3d at 845 page 929 (Castro-Cortez v. INS, the 9th Circuit Court of appeals pages 930 – 934) Another punch is that “Alien may make several statements, has several evidences or exhibits, but he has no right to introduce such evidence to be considered by the governmental decision-makers. Denial of this right not only hampers review Court’s power to review decision below.” Filing separate volume of Addendum or New Evidence in this case is unrelated to Immigration and Nationality Act ("INA")§ 242(b) (4)(A), 8 U.S.C. 2 Ofume v. Eric H. Holder - Civil Appeal No. 09-1610 -Opposition §1252(b)(4)(A)(2000) because the separate volume of Addendum comes with NEW EVIDENCE which is separation expired biometric test and unexpired biometric test. In the footing unexpired biometric test is new evidence. Question of serious public interest heard before this Court and The Supreme Court of the United States is whether Immigration and Nationality Act ("INA")§ 242(b) (4)(A), 8 U.S.C. §1252(b)(4)(A)(2000) is able to defeat NEW EVIDENCE which is capable of finding justice, saving the lives of seven (7) children and their two (2) parents in democratic institution like the United States of America. Petitioner argued (Brief, pages 55 – 65) violation of Due Process Rights and that Biometric Test is bona fide part of the Respondent/Plaintiff’s Administrative Record and extensively visible in the following documents which are full part of the Respondent/Plaintiff’s Administrative Record: 1. Decisions of the IJ (two: order of deportation and denial of Motion to Reopen 2. Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeal (BIA) 3. Order of the US Court of Appeal for the First Circuit allowing Petitioner’s Motion for Stay of Deportation. Order of this Court was issued after The Honourable Secretary of Justice and Attorney-General of the 4. Petitioner's Petition for Review to 5. Petitioner/Respondent’s Motion to Reopen to IJ of the 3 Ofume v. Eric H. Holder - Civil Appeal No. 09-1610 -Opposition 6. Petitioner’s Notice of Appeal to the BIA 7. Petitioner’s Motions & Orders/Decisions of the US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit Also specifically, in pages 12 through 65 which are uncountable citations from the Respondent/Plaintiff Administrative Record, Biometric appeared here and there. Now comes necessary question to be asked by learned people – whether is too late or early to file New Evidence in this case. There are two evidences, EXPIRED AND UNEXPIRED BIOMETRIC TESTS. New Evidence which Petitioner intend to file is UNEXPIRED BIOMETRIC TEST. In both this Court and The Supreme Court of the In MAGWOOD v. CULLIVER, No. 09-158 Cert. granted on Nov. 16, 2009 (The Supreme Court of the 1979 through 1997 State of In page 56 of Petitioner’s Brief, Petition followed the track of the rule for entering NEW EVIDENCE and requested for applicable standard for NEW AND MATERIAL EVIDENCE established by Colvin v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 171, 174 (Vet. App. 1991). 4 Ofume v. Eric H. Holder - Civil Appeal No. 09-1610 -Opposition In accordance with this case law (Colvin v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 171, 174 (Vet. App. 1991), Petitioner's position is that NEW or MATERIAL EVIDENCE requires that there be "a reasonable possibility that the new evidence, when viewed in the context of all the evidence, both new and old, would change the outcome." Conclusion Reason of the forgoing, Petitioner request this court to deny Respondent’s Opposition and set date for Respondent’s Brief. Respectively submitted,
Phillip C. Ofume, Ph.D. – Representative/Advocate for the Ofume Family or Petitioner Dr. Phillip C. Ofume, and Mrs. Maureen N. Ofume Tel. (781) 556-1464 E-mail: limptintinc@gmail.com, globalaids_hivcureinteraction@yahoo.co.uk 5
|
|
© 1999–2008 Philadelphia Independent Media Center |
|
Unless otherwise stated by the author, all content is free for non-commercial reuse, reprint, and rebroadcast, on the net and elsewhere. Opinions are those of the contributors and are not necessarily endorsed by PhillyIMC.
|
Comments
Post new comment