holding that they may review the Board’s decision to summarily affirm, and collecting cases holding the same from the First, Ninth, and Tenth Circuits
How later courts described this case
- holding that they may review the Board’s decision to summarily affirm, and collecting cases holding the same from the First, Ninth, and Tenth Circuits
- recognizing that other courts have found that in some cases it makes no practical difference whether the BIA improperly streamlined its review
- holding that the BIA’s summary affirmance without opinion was erroneous where a novel issue of statutory construction was presented
- “[D]eferring to the reasoning of an IJ from which the BIA would be free to depart in other cases would seem highly problematic.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
LAY, Circuit Judge,
concurring.
I fully concur in Judge Stapleton’s well-reasoned opinion. I write separately to point out that I have participated in two Eighth Circuit cases, i.e., Wolde v. Ashcroft, 107 Fed.Appx. 13 (8th Cir.2004) (non-published), and Loulou v. Ashcroft, 354 F.3d 706 (8th Cir.2003), in accord with the reasoning of Ngure v. Ashcroft, 367 F.3d 975 (8th Cir.2004). In Ngure , the Eighth Circuit has stated that the Board of Immigration Appeals’ decision to issue an affirmance without opinion was not subject to judicial review. I believe that the analysis by Judge Stapleton in the instant case is the correct analysis and I write solely to explain my reason for joining his opinion rather than adhering to the opinion in Ngure .