LEONEL OCON-PEREZ, 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 held that the INS correctly ordered deportation based on final state convictions, as the INS cannot invalidate state convictions and deportation is not cruel and unusual punishment.
Petitioner was ordered deported after admitting to two state burglary convictions. His administrative appeals were dismissed, and he argued the convic…
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 Deportation Proceedings cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
At the hearing before the Immigration Judge of the order to show cause why petitioner should not be deported for his having been convicted of two burglaries in state courts, he admitted the convictions. The Immigration Judge held petitioner to be deportable, and his appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals was dismissed. We affirm.
Petitioner’s contention before the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) that the state court convictions were legally infirm was addressed to the wrong forum. As an administrative agency, the INS has no power to adjudicate the validity of state convictions underlying deportation proceedings. Aguilera-Enriquez v. INS, 516 F. 2d 565, 570 (6th Cir. 1975), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 1050, 96 S.Ct. 776, 46 L.Ed.2d 638 (1976). Since the convictions were final — there were no appeals taken from them — there was an adequate basis for the order of deportation. Id.; Marino v. INS, 537 F. 2d 686, 691-92 (2d Cir. 1976).
The argument that, because the INS began the deportation proceedings two months after petitioner’s last conviction, he was not afforded adequate time to seek expungement of his state convictions and thereby was denied equal protection, is unsupported except for the bare conclusions that the proceedings were “selective” and “accelerated.” Moreover, expungement proceedings, even if successful, would not aid petitioner since the underlying convictions would retain their vitality for deportation purposes. Garcia-Gonzales v. INS, 344 F. 2d 804 (9th Cir. 1965); Brownrigg v. INS, 356 F. 2d 877 (9th Cir. 1966); de la Cruz-Martinez v. INS, 404 F. 2d 1198 (9th Cir. 1968).
Finally, petitioner’s Eighth Amendment contention is foreclosed by decisions of this court, the latest of which is Le Tourneur v. INS, 538 F. 2d 1368 (9th Cir. 1976), holding that “deportation is not cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment even though the penalty may be severe.” 538 F. 2d at 1370.
AFFIRMED.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Avila-Murrieta v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv., 762 F.2d 733 (9th Cir. 1985)
-
United States v. Bergeman, 592 F.2d 533 (9th Cir. 1979)
-
Zinnanti v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv., 651 F.2d 420 (5th Cir. 1981)
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Kaeserman v. United States, 423 U.S. 1050 (U.S. 1976)
- Aguilera-Enriquez v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv., 423 U.S. 1050 (U.S. 1976)
- Garcia-Gonzales v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv., 344 F.2d 804 (9th Cir. 1965)
- Aguilera-Enriquez v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv., 516 F.2d 565 (6th Cir. 1975)
- Giuseppe Marino v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv., 537 F.2d 686 (2d Cir. 1976)
- Maximilliano de la Cruz-Martinez v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv., 404 F.2d 1198 (9th Cir. 1968)
- LeTOURNEUR v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv., 538 F.2d 1368 (9th Cir. 1976)
- Brownrigg v. The United States Immigr. & Naturalization Serv., 356 F.2d 877 (9th Cir. 1966)