§
In the Matter of O

9 Cited authorities

  1. U.S. Philips Corp.

    414 U.S. 5 (1973)   Cited 199 times
    Holding that estoppel did not toll the Act's statutory deadline

  2. United States v. Murff

    260 F.2d 610 (2d Cir. 1958)   Cited 23 times
    In United States ex rel. Paktorovics v. Murff, 260 F.2d 610 (2d Cir. 1958), the court found that while the President alone lacked authority to create a legally enforceable right to enter this country, nonetheless an immigrant who travelled here upon an invitation issued "pursuant to the announced foreign policy of the United States as formulated by the President" and who was detained at Ellis Island was at the least entitled to a hearing before revocation of parole.

  3. United States v. Murff

    176 F. Supp. 253 (S.D.N.Y. 1959)   Cited 18 times
    Holding that alien paroled and released on bond pending exclusion proceedings was "still, in theory of law, ‘on the threshold of initial entry.’ " (quoting Shaughnessy v. United States ex rel. Mezei , 345 U.S. 206, 212, 73 S.Ct. 625, 97 L.Ed. 956 (1953) )

  4. Menon v. Esperdy

    413 F.2d 644 (2d Cir. 1969)   Cited 4 times
    Noting that "since a parole does not constitute an admission into the United States . . . th[e] appeal involve[d] an exclusion . . . rather than an expulsion"

  5. United States v. Watkins

    164 F.2d 457 (2d Cir. 1947)   Cited 18 times
    In United States ex rel. Paetau v. Watkins, 164 F.2d 457, 460 (2d Cir. 1947), we qualified the Carapa holding by explaining that "[t]he actual decision [in that case] involved only the power of the appellate court on review, although some of the language of the opinion went further."

  6. United States v. Holland-America Line

    231 F.2d 373 (2d Cir. 1956)   Cited 6 times

    No. 215, Docket 23695. Argued January 16, 1956. Decided March 14, 1956. Burlingham, Hupper Kennedy, New York City (Herbert M. Lord and Robert F. Lynch, New York City, of counsel), for defendant-appellant. Paul W. Williams, U.S. Atty., for the Southern District of New York, New York City (Eliot H. Lumbard, Asst. U.S. Atty., New York City, of counsel), for plaintiff-appellee. Before MEDINA, HINCKS and WATERMAN, Circuit Judges. MEDINA, Circuit Judge. Plaintiff, the United States, brought this suit for

  7. United States v. Watkins

    163 F.2d 328 (2d Cir. 1947)   Cited 13 times
    Holding that order under which alien was to be deported after he was forcibly brought to the United States as a prisoner of war and deemed, contrary to the evidence, to be an applicant for admission, was entered "without jurisdiction" because alien had a right to depart voluntarily

  8. United States v. Zimmerman

    178 F.2d 645 (3d Cir. 1949)

    No. 9939. Argued November 8, 1949. December 15, 1949. Karl I. Schofield, Philadelphia, Pa., for appellant. James P. McCormick, Asst. U.S. Atty., Philadelphia (Gerald A. Gleeson, U.S. Atty. and Frank P. Braden, Philadelphia, Pa., on the brief), for appellee. Before MARIS and GOODRICH, Circuit Judges, and CLARY, District Judge. CLARY, District Judge. This is an appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania discharging a writ of habeas corpus sued

  9. Section 1182 - Inadmissible aliens

    8 U.S.C. § 1182   Cited 9,759 times   66 Legal Analyses
    Holding deportable aliens who have been convicted of "crimes involving moral turpitude"