FABIAN SEGURA-VIACHI AND MARIA ASUNCION AVILA DE SEGURA, PETITIONERS,
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 petitioner husband cannot take advantage of the suspension of deportation statute because he failed to meet the continuous physical presence requirement.
The government argued the husband failed the seven-year continuous physical presence requirement for suspension of deportation due to a voluntary depa…
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 Continuous Physical Presence cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
This is a petition for review of an order of deportation. The issue is whether the petitioner husband may take advantage of 8 U.S.C. § 1254, the suspension of deportation statute. We hold that he may not.
The government argues that § 1254 is not available because the husband has failed to meet the statute’s requirement of continuous physical presence in the United States for the seven years immediately preceding the application for § 1254 relief. The government contends that the husband’s presence was significantly interrupted some four years prior to the § 1254 application by the husband’s admitted voluntary departure under threat of deportation. See 8 U.S.C. § 1254(e). We agree. Barragan-Sanchez v. Rosenberg, 471 F. 2d 758 (9th Cir. 1972).
Petitioners argue that the seven year period need not immediately precede the application for § 1254 relief. The plain language of the statute contradicts this. Finally, petitioners assert that § 1254(f) gives an independent basis for relief not requiring a seven year presence. The statute will not bear such a construction. See Gregor v. Immigration & Naturalization Service, 351 F. 2d 290 (9th Cir. 1965).
The petition is denied.
AFFIRMED.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Immigr. & Naturalization Serv. v. Rios-Pineda, 471 U.S. 444 (U.S. 1985)
-
Vargas-Gonzalez v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv., 647 F.2d 457 (5th Cir. 1981)
-
Dill v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv. & Executive Off. of Immigr. Review, 773 F.2d 25 (3d Cir. 1985)
Authorities Cited
- Isbell Enters., Inc. v. Citizens Cas. Co. OF NEW York, 431 F.2d 409 (5th Cir. 1970)
- Gudelia Barragan-Sanchez v. Rosenberg, 471 F.2d 758 (9th Cir. 1972)
- Gregor v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv., 351 F.2d 290 (9th Cir. 1965)