Jerezano v. I. N. S, 169 F.3d 613 (9th Cir. 1999)

Holding:

The Ninth Circuit held that being slightly late to a hearing does not constitute a failure to appear, especially when the judge is still present and other cases are being heard. The court granted the petition, remanding the case to the BIA with instructions to permit Jerezano to present his claims for asylum and withholding of deportation or to consider voluntary departure.

Important Cases Relied Upon:

Sharma v. INS, 89 F.3d 545 (9th Cir. 1996): The court in Sharma dealt with a situation where the petitioner arrived 45 minutes to an hour late for his immigration hearing. The IJ conducted an in absentia hearing. The Ninth Circuit upheld the decision, focusing on the insufficiency of the petitioner’s excuse for absenteeism rather than directly addressing whether the tardiness constituted a failure to appear.

Romani v. INS, 146 F.3d 737 (9th Cir. 1998): In Romani, the Ninth Circuit held that petitioners who were misled by their attorney's assistant and failed to enter the proper courtroom had not “failed to appear” and were entitled to have their hearing reopened.

Burgos-Abril v. INS, 58 F.3d 475 (9th Cir. 1995): This case emphasized the importance of ensuring a full and fair hearing in immigration proceedings, a principle applied in the present case to argue that Jerezano’s due process rights were violated.

Implications of the Case in Simple Terms:

This case highlights the importance of ensuring fairness in immigration proceedings, even for those who arrive slightly late to their hearings. The court’s decision emphasizes that a minor delay should not lead to severe consequences like deportation without having the chance to present one’s case, especially when the judge is still available and other cases are being heard. In essence, it underscores the importance of due process and fairness in the legal process, particularly in matters as consequential as deportation and asylum.