Opinion

Momin v. Gonzales

  • 462 F.3d 497
  • 2006 U.S. App. LEXIS 21923
Court
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Filed
Aug 25, 2006
Status
Published
Author
Clement
On the bench
Reavley, Clement, Prado
Cited by
0 cases
Authority
More cited than 5.6%

remanding to the Eighth Circuit for further consideration in light of the new regulations

How later courts described this case

  • remanding to the Eighth Circuit for further consideration in light of the new regulations

Written by the judges who cited it.

The opinion

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT August 25, 2006

_________________________ Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

No. 05-60119

_________________________

AMIN MEMANJI MOMIN,

Petitioner,

versus

ALBERTO R. GONZALES, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,

Respondent.

__________________________________________________

Appeal from the Board of Immigration Appeals

(No. A78-562-049)

__________________________________________________

Before REAVLEY, CLEMENT, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

EDITH BROWN CLEMENT, Circuit Judge:

In this petition for panel rehearing, the Petitioner, Amin Memanji Momin, contends that this

court should reconsider its previous decision, Momin v. Gonzales, 447 F.3d 447 (5th Cir. 2006), in

light of the repeal of the regulations on which the decision was premised. The new federal regulations

apply to “all cases pending administrative or judicial review on or after May 12, 2006.” Eligibility

of Arriving Aliens in Removal Proceedings, 71 Fed. Reg. 27,585, 27,588 (May 12, 1996); see

-1-

Mouelle v. Gonzales, 416 F.3d 923 (8th Cir. 2005), cert. granted and judgment vacated, 126 S. Ct.

2964 (2006) (remanding to the Eighth Circuit for further consideration in light of the new

regulations).

On May 12, 2006, the mandate had not issued. Both the Petitioner and the Respondent ask

this court to grant the petition for rehearing, vacate our opinion, and remand the case to the Board

of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) for further proceedings under the new regulations. We agree with

their position.

Accordingly, we GRANT the petition for rehearing, VACATE our previous opinion, 447 F.3d

447, and REMAND the case to the BIA for further proceedings under the new regulations.

-2-

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.