YUN-SING TUAN, PETITIONER,
v.
IMMIGRATION & 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 affirmed the Board of Immigration Appeals' order dismissing the appeal from the Immigration Judge's denial of adjustment of status.
Tuan sought adjustment of status to permanent resident after deportation proceedings began. The Immigration Judge denied this, citing misrepresentatio…
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 Labor Certification cases and more on FLexlaw
[*1338] PER CURIAM:
Tuan petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals dismissing his appeal from a decision of the Immigration Judge in a deportation proceeding which denied an adjustment of his status to permanent resident. We affirm the Board’s order. The Government began deportation proceedings against Tuan in September 1973. At his show cause hearing petitioner conceded his deportability under 8 U.S.C.A. § 1251(a)(9), but he sought an adjustment of his status from nonimmigrant to permanent resident, 8 U.S.C.A. § 1255. The Immigration Judge refused Tuan’s request for adjustment, (i) on the basis that he was statutorily ineligible for readjustment because his required labor certification, 8 U.S. C.A. § 1182(a)(14), was issued pursuant to misrepresentation by Tuan, and (ii) in the exercise of his discretion on the basis of his finding that Tuan had a preconceived intent to remain in the United States which was not balanced by any equities warranting adjustment of status. The Board dismissed the appeal on the basis of (ii), Tuan’s preconceived intent.1
On direct appeal to this Court, 8 U.S.C.A. § 1105a, we review the denial of discretionary relief narrowly. Jarecha v. Immigration & Naturalization Service, 5 Cir., 1969, 417 F. 2d 220, 224. We find that the Immigration Judge’s conclusion that Tuan had preconceived intent to remain in the United States was based on substantial evidence2 and was not arbitrary or capricious. Tuan was accorded all of the requirements of due process by a full hearing before the Immigration Judge and appeal to the Board as well as this Court.
AFFIRMED.
. The Board did not rule on (i) because of conflicting evidence concerning the issuance of the labor certification.
. Tuan entered on a business visitor’s visa representing the Full Hand Company of Taiwan. Within a month he filed an application for his labor certification using a letter of recommendation prepared by a Taiwan employer six months before Tuan’s arrival in the United States.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Coriolan v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv., 559 F.2d 993 (5th Cir. 1977)
-
Dong SIK Kwon v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv., 646 F.2d 909 (5th Cir. 1981)
-
Adnan Sadik Faddah and Laina Kaarina Faddah v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv., 553 F.2d 491 (5th Cir. 1977)
Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Isbell Enters., Inc. v. Citizens Cas. Co. OF NEW York, 431 F.2d 409 (5th Cir. 1970)
- Navinchandra Mafatlal Jarecha v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv., 417 F.2d 220 (5th Cir. 1969)