Chung Chiu Huang Chuang Li-Chun Huang Hua Huang and Yao Huang v. Immigration & Naturalization Service
Docket: 94-3187
Court: Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit; February 9, 1995; Federal Appellate Court
Chung Chiu Huang and his family, citizens of Taiwan, overstayed their visitor status in the U.S. and were found deportable by an Immigration Judge. Their counsel attempted to appeal the deportation decision, but the Board of Immigration Appeals dismissed the appeal as untimely. The Immigration Judge issued a decision on May 4, 1993, in Pittsburgh, and the Huangs' counsel filed notices of appeal on May 12, 1993. Although the local Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) office accepted the documents, it advised that they be sent to the Immigration Judge’s office in Chicago. The appeal documents were mailed and received in Chicago on May 17, 1993.
Under relevant regulations (8 C.F.R. Sec. 3.0-.40), a party affected by an Immigration Judge's decision has the right to appeal within ten days, extendable to thirteen days if mailed. The Huangs were provided with a preprinted notice that specified the appeal had to be submitted to the Immigration Judge's office by May 14, 1993, along with the required fee. The regulations emphasize that the notice of appeal should not be sent directly to the Board of Immigration Appeals. The court ultimately decided to grant the Huangs' petitions for review.
The Board of Immigration Appeals recognized that the notices of appeal were mailed to the Chicago Office of the Immigration Judge and received on May 17, 1993, thirteen days after the decision in question. Despite this, the Board deemed the notices untimely based on its interpretation of 8 C.F.R. Sec. 3.38(b), which it read as unambiguous regarding the timing of appeals. However, the Service acknowledged that this section might be ambiguous when considered alone. The ambiguity is further highlighted by the Service's preprinted form instructions, which clarified that the 13-day period applies to the mailing of the notice of appeal, not the decision. The Board's interpretation was criticized for potentially misleading participants, as it advised them to read the rule one way and later imposed a stricter interpretation. Previous cases, such as Vlaicu v. INS and Shamsi v. INS, support that misleading regulations can allow for jurisdiction over untimely appeals. The Board's reference to 8 C.F.R. Sec. 242.21 was rejected as a means to clarify the ambiguity in Sec. 3.38(b), as both sections provide distinct extensions for filing appeals. The court concluded that the petitions for review would be granted, instructing the Board to consider the appeals on their merits. Arguments from the Service regarding waiver and alleged curing of ambiguity by the Immigration Judge's oral advice were found unpersuasive.
