ELEFTHERIOS LIADAKIS, PETITIONER,
v.
IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE, 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 the petition for review was untimely because it was filed outside the statutory six-month period.
Petitioner, a deportable alien, applied to withhold deportation, which was denied by the Board of Immigration Appeals. The petition to review this ord…
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 Statutory Filing Period cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
Petitioner is concededly a deportable alien. Pursuant to Section 243 (h) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 66 Stat. 214 (1952), 8 U.S.C. § 1253 (1958), he applied to the Attorney General to exercise his discretion to withhold deportation. After intermediate proceedings the Board of Immigration Appeals denied the application by order entered April 18, 1963. A petition to review such an order is by statute required to be filed within six months from its date. Immigration and Nationality Act, § 106(a) (1), as added by 75 Stat. 651 (1961), 8 U.S.C. § 1105a(a) (Supp. V, 1959-63). The petition to this court, vested with exclusive jurisdiction to review the order, Foti v. Immigration & Naturalization Service, 375 U.S. 217, 84 S.Ct. 306, 11 L.Ed.2d 281 (1963), was not filed until April 10, 1964. It is therefore untimely.
Within six months from the date of the order petitioner did petition the United States District Court for the District of Columbia for review by that court. Under stipulation the matter was there held in abeyance pending the outcome of Foti, supra, after which the Dis trict Court dismissed the case. These circumstances do not authorize us to extend the period, fixed by statute, within which a petition must be filed in the court having jurisdiction to review the order. Respondent suggests that petitioner is not remediless, since, it is said, the issue he would have us decide can be raised in habeas corpus proceedings should petitioner be taken in custody for purposes of deportation. Whether or not this suggestion is sound we are not called upon to decide in this case.
Dismissed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Helena Hilda Butterfield v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv. of the United States, 409 F.2d 170 (D.C. Cir. 1969)
-
United States ex rel. Sirijo Tanfara v. Esperdy, 347 F.2d 149 (2d Cir. 1965)
Authorities Cited
- Foti v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv., 375 U.S. 217 (U.S. 1963)