HORACIO RAMOS MIRANDA, 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 INS's unexplained eighteen-month delay in processing a visa petition constituted affirmative misconduct, estopping the INS from denying permanent resident status.
Petitioner sought permanent resident status based on a visa petition filed by his wife. The INS delayed processing the petition for eighteen months be…
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 Permanent Resident Status cases and more on FLexlaw
PHILIP C. WILKINS, District Judge.
Miranda seeks judicial review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) decision. Said decision dismissed the appeal of the order of deportation and of the denial of petitioner’s application for adjustment of status or for voluntary departure. Petitioner argues that the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) should be es-topped from denying him the status of permanent resident pursuant to the provisions of Section 245 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1255, due to its delay in processing an immediate relative visa petition filed by his then wife on his behalf. The Board found no evidence of any “affirmative misconduct” by a Service officer regarding the denial of the visa petition. We reverse.
The unexplained failure of the INS to act on the visa petition for an eighteen-month period prior to the petitioner’s withdrawal following the breakup of Miranda’s marriage was affirmative misconduct by the INS. See Villena v. INS, 622 F. 2d 1352 (9th Cir. 1980) (en banc); Sun II Yoo v. INS, 534 F. 2d 1325 (9th Cir. 1976).
The matter will be remanded for consideration of Miranda’s application for permanent residence under the circumstances as they existed at the time the INS should originally have acted. The INS must, however, in considering the application, treat the visa petition as if it were approved.
Reversed and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Immigr. & Naturalization Serv. v. Miranda, 459 U.S. 14 (U.S. 1982)
-
Johnson v. Williford, 682 F.2d 868 (9th Cir. 1982)
-
Pooran and Mohammad Akbarin v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv., 669 F.2d 839 (1st Cir. 1982)
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
- Narciso Edgardo Inciong Villena v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv., 622 F.2d 1352 (9th Cir. 1980)
- SUN IL YOO v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv., 534 F.2d 1325 (9th Cir. 1976)