U.S. v. Morales-Hernandez, CR-18-00365-TUC-RCC (JR). (2018)
Court: District Court, D. Arizona
Number: infdco20180920852
Visitors: 6
Filed: Sep. 14, 2018
Latest Update: Sep. 14, 2018
Summary: ORDER RANER C. COLLINS , District Judge . The Court has reviewed the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (Doc. 40), the supplemental pleadings filed by the parties, and thus rules as follows; This case, unlike the case cited by the defendant, Pereira v. Sessions, is a case in which the defendant was present and participated in the proceedings resulting in his removal. The fact that the initial notice did not include the date, time and place is of no moment. The defendant exercis
Summary: ORDER RANER C. COLLINS , District Judge . The Court has reviewed the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (Doc. 40), the supplemental pleadings filed by the parties, and thus rules as follows; This case, unlike the case cited by the defendant, Pereira v. Sessions, is a case in which the defendant was present and participated in the proceedings resulting in his removal. The fact that the initial notice did not include the date, time and place is of no moment. The defendant exercise..
More
ORDER
RANER C. COLLINS, District Judge.
The Court has reviewed the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (Doc. 40), the supplemental pleadings filed by the parties, and thus rules as follows;
This case, unlike the case cited by the defendant, Pereira v. Sessions, is a case in which the defendant was present and participated in the proceedings resulting in his removal. The fact that the initial notice did not include the date, time and place is of no moment. The defendant exercised his right to due process and fully participated and therefore cannot claim that because the initial notice was deficient the Immigration Court lacked jurisdiction.
The Motion to Dismiss, as recommended by the Magistrate Judge, is not granted and the case proceeds forward.
Source: Leagle
