§

In the Matter of Mangabat

14 I&N Dec. 75 (B.I.A. 1972)
In the Matter of Mangabat

11 Cited authorities

  1. Immigration Service v. Errico

    385 U.S. 214 (1966)   Cited 108 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Recognizing that doubts as to the correct construction of a deportation statute "should be resolved in favor of the alien"

  2. Omega v. Rader

    404 U.S. 983 (1971)   Cited 37 times

    No. 70-285. December 7, 1971. C.A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 440 F. 2d 469.

  3. LEE FOOK CHUEY v. IMMIGRATION NATURALIZATION

    439 F.2d 244 (9th Cir. 1971)   Cited 26 times
    In Lee Fook Chuey, supra, we stated the essence of the qualitative/quantitative distinction thusly: "[q]uantitative restrictions in the immigration laws serve to limit the number of immigrants (e. g., quota restrictions) while qualitative restrictions are intended to exclude those who are mentally, morally or physically unfit or undesirable."

  4. Ferrante v. Immigration Naturalization Serv

    399 F.2d 98 (6th Cir. 1968)   Cited 16 times
    Applying § 1154(c) to uphold revocation of alien's "immediate relative" status obtained by current citizen-spouse under § 1151(b) where alien had entered into prior fraudulent marriage before current marriage to petitioning spouse

  5. United States v. Osuna-Picos

    443 F.2d 907 (9th Cir. 1971)   Cited 9 times

    No. 26549 May 26, 1971. George Haverstick (argued), San Diego, Cal., for defendant-appellant. Joseph Sureck (argued), Regional Counsel, I NS, San Pedro, Cal., Harry D. Steward, U.S. Atty., Brian E. Michaels, Asst. U.S. Atty., San Diego, Cal., for plaintiff-appellee. Before BARNES and DUNIWAY, Circuit Judges, and GRAY, District Judge. Hon. William P. Gray, United States District Judge, Central District of California, sitting by designation. PER CURIAM: Appellant seeks review of his conviction under

  6. Muslemi v. Immigration Naturalization Serv

    408 F.2d 1196 (9th Cir. 1969)   Cited 9 times

    No. 22419. March 17, 1969. Milton T. Simmons (argued), of Phelan, Simmons Ungar, San Francisco, Cal., for petitioner. John Milano (argued), Asst. U.S. Atty., Cecil F. Poole, U.S. Atty., Stephen Suffin, INS, San Francisco, Cal., Joseph Sureck, Regional Counsel, San Pedro, Cal., for respondent. Before CHAMBERS, KOELSCH, and HUFSTEDLER, Circuit Judges. HUFSTEDLER, Circuit Judge: Petitioner seeks review of a final deportation order of the Board of Immigration Appeals entered against him in a proceeding

  7. Vitales v. Immigration Naturalization Serv

    443 F.2d 343 (9th Cir. 1971)   Cited 7 times

    No. 26686. May 28, 1971. Robert S. Bixby (argued), of Fallon, Hargreaves Bixby, San Francisco, Cal., for petitioner. Charles Gordon (argued), Gen. Counsel, I.N.S., Washington, D.C., James L. Browning, Jr., U.S. Atty., Stephen Suffin, Atty., I.N.S., San Francisco, Cal., John N. Mitchell, U.S. Atty. Gen., Washington, D.C., for respondent. Before BARNES, DUNIWAY, Circuit Judges, and GRAY, District Judge. Honorable William P. Gray, United States District Judge, Central District of California, sitting

  8. Tsaconas v. Immigration Naturalization Serv

    397 F.2d 946 (7th Cir. 1968)   Cited 4 times

    No. 16451. June 25, 1968. Melvyn E. Stein, Chicago, Ill., for petitioner. Thomas A. Foran, Edward V. Hanrahan, U.S. Attys., Chicago, Ill., for respondent; John Peter Lulinski, Asst. U.S. Atty., of counsel. Before SCHNACKENBERG, KILEY and FAIRCHILD, Circuit Judges. SCHNACKENBERG, Circuit Judge. Paraskevi Tsaconas, petitioner, filed a petition for review, pursuant to 8 U.S.C. 1105a, of an order of the Immigration and Naturalization Service requiring her departure from the United States. The order was

  9. Rutledge v. Esperdy

    200 F. Supp. 231 (S.D.N.Y. 1961)   Cited 2 times

    June 29, 1961. Claude H. Kleefield, New York City, for petitioner. Robert M. Morgenthau, U.S. Atty., New York City, for respondent, Roy Babitt, Sp. Asst. U.S. Atty., New York City, of counsel. FREDERICK van PELT BRYAN, District Judge. Respondent, the New York District Director of the United States Immigration and Naturalization Service, moves for summary judgment pursuant to Rule 56, F.R.Civ.P. 28 U.S.C. in this suit brought by petitioner Rutledge, a citizen of the British Virgin Islands, to enjoin

  10. Rutledge v. Esperdy

    297 F.2d 532 (2d Cir. 1961)   Cited 1 times

    No. 148, Docket 27099. Argued December 12, 1961. Decided December 13, 1961. Claude Henry Kleefield, New York City, for petitioner-appellant. Roy Babitt, Sp. Asst. U.S. Atty., Southern Dist. of New York, New York City (Robert M. Morgenthau, U.S. Atty., Southern Dist. of New York, New York City, on the brief), for respondent-appellee. Before LUMBARD, Chief Judge and MOORE and HAYS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM. This appeal raises the question whether an alien who legally entered the United States as

  11. Section 1251 - Transferred

    8 U.S.C. § 1251   Cited 2,154 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Delineating crimes that make alien deportable