FILIPPO GIOVA, AKA PHILIP GIOVA, AND AKA PHILIP CALEO, PETITIONER,
v.
GEORGE K. ROSENBERG, DISTRICT DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE AT LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA, RESPONDENT
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.
The court held that it lacks jurisdiction to hear an appeal from the denial of a motion to reopen deportation proceedings, as the appeal must be from the final deportation order itself.
Petitioner's deportation order was issued in 1957 and upheld by the Board of Immigration Appeals. Petitioner moved to reopen the proceedings, which wa…
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.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Judicial Review Of Deportation Orders cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This court’s jurisdiction is here invoked under the provisions of Public Law 87-301 (75 Stat. 650), 8 U.S.C.A. § 1105a, effective September 26, 1961, which provides for “the judicial review of all final orders of deportation.”
The sole deportation order presently outstanding with respect to this petitioner was made April 2, 1957. On September 15, 1957 the Board of Immigration Appeals dismissed petitioner’s appeal from that order. The deportation order referred to above is still in full force and effect, and the record before us indicates it has never been revoked.
Petitioner did move to reopen the proceedings before the Board of Immigration Appeals. This request was denied November 3, 1961. Petitioner is now appealing directly to this court from the denial of his motion to reopen; not from the order of deportation.
We have no jurisdiction to hear this appeal. It is dismissed.
We are tempted to discuss the merits of this case. But we cannot reach the rationale behind Pino v. Nicolls, 1 Cir. 1954, 215 F. 2d 237, at 243, reversed per curiam, Pino v. Landon, 1955, 349 U.S. 901, 75 S.Ct. 576, 99 L.Ed. 1239, or the effect of the Attorney General’s holdings in the Matter of A-, 8 I. & N.Dec. 429; Matter of B-, 7 I. & N.Dec. 166; In the Matter of G-, 5 I. & N.Dec. 129, for this court cannot give advisory opinions.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
MAI KAI Fong v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv., 305 F.2d 239 (9th Cir. 1962)
Authorities Cited
- Pino v. Landon, 349 U.S. 901 (U.S. 1955)
- Natural Gas Pipeline Co. v. Panoma Corp., 349 U.S. 44 (U.S. 1955)
- Pino v. Nicolls (two cases), 215 F.2d 237 (1st Cir. 1954)