§
In the Matter of Wong

10 Cited authorities

  1. Stephens v. Toomey

    51 Cal.2d 864 (Cal. 1959)   Cited 138 times
    Stating that, upon a Section 1203.4 dismissal, the probationer is "entitled to . . . have the proceedings expunged from the record"

  2. People v. Williams

    27 Cal.2d 220 (Cal. 1945)   Cited 135 times
    In People v. Williams, 27 Cal.2d 220, 163 P.2d 692, the California court, in construing earlier versions of the mentioned statutes, held that burglary in the second degree is punishable by imprisonment in the state prison (Penal Code § 461) and is therefore a felony.

  3. Kelly v. Immigration and Naturalization Serv

    349 F.2d 473 (9th Cir. 1965)   Cited 13 times

    No. 19340. June 20, 1965. Sidney Broffman, Los Angeles, Cal., for petitioner. Francis C. Whelan, U.S. Atty., Donald A. Fareed, Asst. U.S. Atty., Chief, Civil Section, James R. Dooley, Asst. U.S. Atty., Los Angeles, Cal., for respondent. Before BARNES and ELY, Circuit Judges, and PENCE, District Judge. BARNES, Circuit Judge: This is a petition to review an order of deportation affirmed by the Board of Immigration Appeals. We have jurisdiction pursuant to § 1105a of Title 8, United States Code. The

  4. Gutierrez v. INS

    323 F.2d 593 (9th Cir. 1963)   Cited 12 times

    No. 18565. October 11, 1963. David C. Marcus, Los Angeles, Cal., for appellant. Francis C. Whelan, U.S. Atty., Donald A. Fareed, Asst. U.S. Atty., Chief of Civil Section, and James R. Dooley, Asst. U.S. Atty., Los Angeles, Cal., for appellee. Before BARNES and JERTBERG, Circuit Judges, and STEPHENS, Jr., District Judge. JERTBERG, Circuit Judge. Before us is a petition to review a final order of deportation in which petitioner asks us to determine that he is not a deportable alien and that the order

  5. People v. Plaehn

    237 Cal.App.2d 398 (Cal. Ct. App. 1965)   Cited 9 times

    Docket No. 4867. October 4, 1965. APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Mateo County. Edmund Scott, Judge. Affirmed. Prosecution for burglary. Judgment of conviction on plea of guilty, and after suspension of proceedings and commitment as a narcotics addict, affirmed. Gary E. Merritt, under appointment by the District Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Thomas C. Lynch, Attorney General, Albert W. Harris, Jr., and Paul N. Halvonik, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and

  6. Arrellano-Flores v. Hoy

    262 F.2d 667 (9th Cir. 1958)   Cited 13 times

    No. 15747. December 29, 1958. David C. Marcus, Los Angeles, Cal., for appellant. Laughlin E. Waters, U.S. Atty., Richard A. Lavine, Bruce A. Bevan, Jr., Los Angeles, Cal., for appellee. Before POPE, CHAMBERS and HAMLEY, Circuit Judges. CHAMBERS, Circuit Judge. Arrellano-Flores is a citizen and national of the Republic of Mexico who was lawfully admitted to the United States in 1925. After administrative proceedings the district director of Immigration and Naturalization is about to deport him under

  7. Arellano-Flores v. Rosenberg

    310 F.2d 118 (9th Cir. 1962)   Cited 4 times

    No. 17764. November 9, 1962. David C. Marcus, Los Angeles, Cal., for appellant. Francis C. Whelan, U.S. Atty., Donald A. Fareed and James Dooley, Asst. U.S. Attys., Los Angeles, Cal., for appellee. Before BARNES and HAMLIN, Circuit Judges, and SOLOMON, District Judge. SOLOMON, District Judge. Appellant, Jesus Arellano-Flores, appeals from the District Court's dismissal of a habeas corpus proceeding in which he challenged the legality of an order for his deportation. Appellant is a native and citizen

  8. Section 1251 - Transferred

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

  9. Section 1254 - Repealed

    8 U.S.C. § 1254   Cited 1,130 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Describing suspension-of-deportation eligibility

  10. Section 1259 - Record of admission for permanent residence in the case of certain aliens who entered the United States prior to January 1, 1972

    8 U.S.C. § 1259   Cited 85 times

    A record of lawful admission for permanent residence may, in the discretion of the Attorney General and under such regulations as he may prescribe, be made in the case of any alien, as of the date of the approval of his application or, if entry occurred prior to July 1, 1924, as of the date of such entry, if no such record is otherwise available and such alien shall satisfy the Attorney General that he is not inadmissible under section 1182(a)(3)(E) of this title or under section 1182(a) of this