DANIELLE M. TSIMBIDY-ROCHU, 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 an order of deportation does not violate due process or the Eighth Amendment, and an expunged conviction for marijuana possession still counts as a conviction for deportation purposes.
Petitioner appealed deportation orders and a refusal to reconsider, raising three questions concerning due process, cruel and unusual punishment, and …
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 Expungement Of Conviction cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
These consolidated appeals from an order of deportation and an order refusing to reconsider it raise three questions. The first, whether an order of deportation is a denial of due process, is answered adversely to petitioner in Hari-siades v. Shaughnessy, 342 U.S. 580, 72 S.Ct. 512, 96 L.Ed. 586 (1952).
The second, whether an order of deportation constitutes cruel and unusual punishment within the meaning of the Eighth Amendment, is answered adversely to petitioner by Burr v. Immigration and Naturalization Service, 350 F. 2d 87 (9th Cir. 1965), and Soewapadji v. Wixon, 157 F. 2d 289 (9th Cir. 1946), cert. denied 329 U.S. 792, 67 S.Ct. 369, 91 L.Ed. 678.
The third, whether after her conviction of illegal possession of marijuana was expunged1 petitioner remained convicted of having in her possession a narcotic drug under 8 U.S.C. § 241(a) (11), is answered adversely to petitioner by Brownrigg v. United States Immigration and Naturalization Service, 356 F. 2d 877 (9th Cir. 1966), and the cases there cited. .
Judge Ely retains the view which he, dissenting, expressed in Kelly v. Immigration and Naturalization Service, 349 F. 2d 473 (9th Cir. 1965), but he has authorized the statement that he, yielding to controlling precedent, concurs in this opinion.
The orders of the Board of Immigration Appeals are affirmed.
. Section 176.225 of Nevada Revised Statutes reads in part:
“1. Every defendant who:
(a) Has fulfilled the conditions of his probation for the entire period thereof; * * *
* * * * *
may at any time thereafter be permitted by the court to withdraw his plea of guilty or nolo contendere and enter a plea of not guilty; * * * and * * * the court shall thereupon dismiss the indictment or information against such defendant, who shall thereafter be released from all penalties and disabilities resulting from the offense or crime of which he has been convicted.”
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
United States v. Bergeman, 592 F.2d 533 (9th Cir. 1979)
-
Manzoor H. Qureshi v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv. OF the Dep't OF Just. OF the United States, 519 F.2d 1174 (5th Cir. 1975)
-
Ioannis Georgios Kolios v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv., 532 F.2d 786 (1st Cir. 1976)
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Harisiades v. Shaughnessy, 342 U.S. 580 (U.S. 1952)
- Kelly v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv., 349 F.2d 473 (9th Cir. 1965)
- Burr v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv., 350 F.2d 87 (9th Cir. 1965)
- Soewapadji v. Wixon, 157 F.2d 289 (9th Cir. 1946)
- Brownrigg v. The United States Immigr. & Naturalization Serv., 356 F.2d 877 (9th Cir. 1966)
- Browne v. United States, 329 U.S. 792 (U.S. 1946)
- Soewapadji v. Wixon, 329 U.S. 792 (U.S. 1946)