*1 Recently Mr. Martin Resendez total unstayed that “[t]he states The abstract attorney Yepes-Prado, sent a for Mr. judgment is 5 the imposed this term prison seeking this Court to the Clerk of years.” proper manner guidance of the Court on the AFFIRMED. delays alleged in which to Naturalization and Service regard remand. Board with to the routinely properly and The Clerk’s office and sent them to copies made of the letter panel. is no There the members advised that has been record majority deemed it sen- that was done. The Petitioner, YEPES-PRADO, Rigoberto inquire whether the sible to ask the Clerk to respond to Mr. Gua- government wished to jardo’s letter. AND NATURAL IMMIGRATION U.S. SERVICE, Respondent.
IZATION
Judge
believes that we don’t
Kozinski
the De-
jurisdiction to ask the Clerk to ask
No. 91-70114.
respond.
if it cares to
partment of Justice
of
Court
United States
that the order and his
He has also demanded
Ninth Circuit.
published.
dissent be
course,
Oct.
request
publication,
of
His
And,
course,
is no
of
there
been honored.
REINHARDT,
FERGUSON,
Before:
jurisdictional
impairment
Judges.
Circuit
simple request.
FERGUSON;
necessary by
reason
by Judge
A disclaimer is
Concurrence
REINHARDT;
regarding
expressions in the dissent
by Judge
elitist
Concurrence
It
doubtful
is
by Judge
unsolicited communications.
KOZINSKI.
Dissent
judge in
believes that
any other
America
permis-
only with
judges may be addressed
ORDER
addition,
important to remem-
In
it is
sion.
Immi-
to furnish the
is directed
The Clerk
to and sent
was addressed
that the letter
ber
with a
Service
gration and Naturalization
to the Clerk.
28, 1994,
copy of counsel’s letter
anyone Finally, unbelievable
is
writing whether
the Service
inquire paranoid to
Department of Justice is so
respond to or comment
wishes to
Kozinski,
believe,
as does
letter.
“thinly-
majority
is
simple
indicating that we have
message
veiled
FERGUSON,
Judge, explaining a
Circuit
let-
silly affair:
says
shouldn’t be
Judge Kozinski
there
ter.”
expla-
requires an
Judge Kozinski’s dissent
majority
secrets,
lifts
yet
dissents when
majority.
order of the
about the brief
nation
the veil.
In
November
Yepes-Pra
opinion,
its amended
case issued
concurring
REINHARDT,
Judge,
INS,
(9th Cir.1993),
vacat
do v.
pleased my colleague’s to accede to request. ty has “reasonably subject become ques- to tion,” therefore concur the order. since it has received and considered ex parte communications, and sought then to Judge, dissenting: pressure opposing side responding into kind?
My colleagues extraordinary take the step sending inquiry the INS a written asking Litigation only can serve as a fair and respond whether it to would like ato letter resolving means of disputes effective if ev- that hasn’t been filed —a letter that can’t be eryone plays by the rules. What Mr. Gua- filed because pending there is no ease before jardo unprofessional did here was and im- the court. The letter comes to peti- us from proper: In a ham-handed effort to influence counsel, tioner’s the judges he will ultimately knows decide upon who has taken it himself to bombard us case, he has twice written to the court with unsolicited and unauthorized correspon- describing supposed part misconduct on the relating allegedly dence facts that have tran- (For of the INS. those who doubt char- spired since we remanded the ease eleven acterization, I Guajardo’s attach Mr. latest ago. months epistle.) Guajardo’s To reward profes- Mr. sional Mr. misconduct sending enclosed a indicating notice the INS a thin- ly-veiled message that he served the indicating INS we letter on 29,1994. Thus, portion to pro- our order this letter is to claim directs the clerk loud and clear judges “to furnish that our the Immi- will not gration eyes avert their and Naturalization when an improper Service with a submis- copy” leaf, brazenly sion is fig This, the letter is a thrust small before them. it me, one at seems very type that. know to is the We well that information that Guajardo’s kept INS has should not be from plenty practicing Mr. bar of long enough to the Ninth 2(d); if it Circuit. eared do to so. Cir.R. Cf. 36— Stanley Apparently Greenberg, Pal, dissatisfied with the entire- Prosecutor’s INS’ ly J., proper L.A.Daily August Guajar- decision not to counter at 6. Mr. rogue do’s correspondence, my colleagues It is for these reasons I emphatically prod now seek to taking the INS into some dissent from the seemingly trivial action. today. action devices, Left own just ignore What is the would INS to deduce from Guajardo’s all this? Mr. improper plausible attempts The most inference is that one or influence us. But if we feel judges more of on the something, constrained do read and appro- most Guajardo’s priate been troubled by thing would be to unautho- refer Mr. all, submission; possible rized after point disciplinary there’s no action. “respond the INS to or comment if letter” both the letter and the response ignored. are to be presents This Law OffiCE lawyers INS with a difficult choice: they Should profession- stick the norms of MaetíN Resendez al conduct and refuse to be drawn an off- into Corporation A Professional spitting the-record concerning contest mat- Building Transamerica court, ters not properly before the risk but angering judges who will hear any appeal 45th Floor very from the proceedings which are the FrancisCO, California subject of Mr. letter? Should July 28, 1994 they cast aside their scruples try to palliate apparent the court’s Court, concern over a Clerk of the dispute factual that is not before it and that Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals way has no resolving? Or should the P.O. Box 193939 INS file a pursuant motion to 28 U.S.C. 121 Spear Street § suggesting that panel’s impartiali- CA 94119-3939 deny
Service’s proper after the Ninth Cir- Court’s remand Yepes-Prado v. INS pro- that such specifically cuit has ordered ceedings be reconsidered? *3 No. A34-588-518 I&NS guid- petitioner continues to seek the The or madam: Dear sir proper manner in ance of this Court on the petition- letter on behalf This second Immigration the Ser- which to up- to further er, Yepes-Prado, serves Board’s actions which are interfer- vice’s and regarding the obstruction date the Court order to remand and ing with the court’s to the Board of this case the Court’s remand adjudication petitioner’s delaying the 8, 1993 Appeals on October Immigration application immigration for relief. proceed- deportation reeopening of for the Cordially, ings against petitioner. Board’s dismissal vacated the The Court Martin Resendez /s/ this case to the appeal and remanded instructing that MARTIN RESENDEZ GUAJARDO nearly ago 10 months applica- petitioner’s Board reconsider Attorney petitioner 212(c) of the under section tion for a waiver (INA). Nationality Act
Immigration and 19, through government April 1994 the On Naturalization Service Immigration and OF SERVICE PROOF (INS) Opposition an Francisco filed San to Remand. the Motion Yepes-Prado v. INS 1994, again inquired with a July On Immigration Appeals at the Board of clerk with the Service petitioner’s file
whether A34-588-518 I&NS No. adjudication. their yet been received for had I, I am an undersigned, declare that they had no records at clerk stated that The Abbot, Law of Martin Resen- employee of the Office Nancy a case the Board since address is 600 dez business my call. at the Board returned coordinator Floor, Street, San Francis- her that the When informed co, I have served the California and that April and asked opposition had filed their file, original/s copy of the attached: true have the why still would not not know.” stated she “did Ms. Abbot (703) 305- 1994 Ms. Abbot at On THE LETTER TO CLERK to inform me that telephoned office THE OF COURT requested petitioner’s personally she copy in a seal person placing said the file had informed me that file. She also sealed, post- envelope, which was then before, first time in requested twice
been thereon, day was this age fully paid explained February 1994. Ms. Abbot then as follows: addressed of Im- following approval the Office request goes to migration Litigation, the file Immigration Litigation Office of the Office —in Division Civil Francisco, may for- which than be ease San Department of Justice Storage facility. She Federal warded to the Box Ben Franklin Station P.O. long it would take for the did not know how Washington, D.C. 20044 suggested I call Board to receive the file days. again in 30 Immigration & Naturalization Counsel delay of even Service—District nearly ten month Is the to the Board an 630 Sansome getting petitioner’s file Francisco, CA justice? Is obstruction JULY, day Executed on this 29 1994 at California.
Law Office of *4 Phillip ELLIOTT, Petitioner,
Charles
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE
COMMISSION, Respondent.
Non-Argument Calendar.
United States Court of
Eleventh Circuit.
Aug.