FAUSTO GONZALEZ-JIMENEZ, APPELLANT,
v.
ALBERT DEL GUERCIO, DISTRICT DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION AT LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA, ET AL., APPELLEES

9th Cir. | 1958-03-14
No. 15748
253 F.2d 420 United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (1958) Positive Treatment
Cited by 6 cases

AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.


Holding

The court held that the denial of discretionary relief to reapply for admission was not an abuse of discretion.


Facts & Procedural History

Appellant sought judicial review of a deportation order and denial of voluntary departure and permission to reapply for admission. Appellant was unlaw…

The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.


Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant here sought judicial review by way of declaratory relief in respect to an order of deportation and a denial of voluntary departure from the United States and a refusal to grant permission nunc pro tune to reapply for admission into the United States. As appellant is admittedly unlawfully in the United States following his fourth or fifth illegal entry, he has no ground for complaint with respect to the order for deportation. His principal argument here appears to be that he should have been granted permission to reapply for admission into the United States nunc pro tune.

As there is no right to be granted such permission to reapply as that which appellant sought, the only question before us is whether there was an abuse of discretion in denying this application.

It is reasonably apparent from the record here that appellant knew of the necessity of making such an application before entering the United States and that he disregarded and neglected doing so. There is also credible evidence in the record to sustain the finding of the immigration officers that he had made false statements on prior occasions which warranted a determination of his lack of moral character. The false statements were given in testimony and would constitute perjury or false swearing. Accordingly, we cannot hold that the denial of this discretionary relief was arbitrary. We do not overlook the hardship that results from the fact that appellant’s wife is granted such relief while he is denied it. This however furnishes no ground for a reversal of the judgment below.

Affirmed.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw