Thompson v. INS ( 1997 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
GIFFORD ROY THOMPSON,
Petitioner,
v.
No. 96-1477
U.S. IMMIGRATION & NATURALIZATION
SERVICE,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order
of the Board of Immigration Appeals.
(A40-385-845)
Submitted: March 31, 1997
Decided: April 24, 1997
Before MURNAGHAN and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and
PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge.
_________________________________________________________________
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
_________________________________________________________________
COUNSEL
Curtis Leroy Solomon, Washington, D.C., for Petitioner. Frank W.
Hunger, Assistant Attorney General, David M. McConnell, Assistant
Director, John Andre, Senior Litigation Counsel, Office of Immigra-
tion Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,
Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
_________________________________________________________________
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c).
_________________________________________________________________
OPINION
PER CURIAM:
Gifford Roy Thompson petitions this Court for review of the final
order of the Board of Immigration Appeals dismissing his appeal
from the Immigration Judge's order. We deny Thompson's petition.
Despite two extensions of time in which to file applications
seeking
relief from deportation with the Immigration Judge (IJ), Thompson
failed to timely file original copies of his applications and
supporting
materials. He also failed to file fee receipts or waivers with any
of his
application materials. Thompson does not contest his failure to
file
timely originals, he only asserts that the Immigration Judge's dis-
missal of his applications for lack of prosecution amounted to a
viola-
tion of procedural due process given that he filed timely copies of
these documents.
Immigration regulations require that all "[a]pplications and
petition
forms must be submitted in the original." 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(4)
(1996). These regulations also require that a fee receipt or waiver
accompany any application or document requiring payment of a fee.
8 C.F.R. § 3.31(b) (1996). Thompson failed to comply with these
requirements and thus his applications were not properly filed with
the IJ. This failure to properly file within the appropriate time
period
effectively waives his opportunity to file. 8 C.F.R.§ 3.31(c)
(1996).
The administrative record reveals that Thompson was clearly told
what applications and documents he needed to file with the IJ. He
was
also given two extensions of time in which to file these documents.
Accordingly, we find that he had a full and fair opportunity to
file his
applications. We thus find no procedural due process violation in
the
2
Immigration Judge's dismissal of his applications for lack of
prosecu-
tion or the Board's decision dismissing his appeal on this same
basis.
We therefore deny his petition for review.
PETITION DENIED
3