MILUTIN
v.
BOUCHARD, DISTRICT DIRECTOR, IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE
MILUTIN
BOUCHARD, DISTRICT DIRECTOR, IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE
370 U.S. 292
Supreme Court of the United States (1962)
Positive Treatment
Cited by 8 cases
Per_curiam
Per Curiam.
The petition for writ of certiorari is granted. The judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit is vacated and the case is remanded to the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey with instructions to remand it to the Immigration and Naturalization Service with directions to reopen the proceeding and to afford petitioner an opportunity to seek relief under § 243 (h) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 pursuant to the procedures established by the currently applicable regulations as suggested by the Solicitor General.
Mr. Justice Frankfurter took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Francesco Foti v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv., 308 F.2d 779 (2d Cir. 1962)…delegate whether the alien, though subject to deportation shall have the order of deportation withheld, is a different matter,” Milutin v. Bouchard, 299 F. 2d 50, 51 (3 Cir. 1962), cert. granted and judgment vacated on consent of Solicitor General, 370 U.S. 292, 82 S.Ct. 1562, 8 L.Ed.2d 501 (1962). In fact, the withholding and suspending sections outline no procedure, let alone requiring use of the procedure prescribed by § 242(b), to which the 1961 judicial review amendment is keyed. Whereas a determina…
-
Sovich v. Esperdy, 319 F.2d 21 (2d Cir. 1963)…y have the benefit of Judge Waterman’s elaboration of the governing standards, and also to accord to Sovich the advantage of the new procedures established by regulations in force subsequent to the date of bis hearing (see Milutin v. Bouchard, 1962, 370 U.S. 292, 82 S.Ct. 156, 8 L.Ed.2d 501, vacating and remanding, 3 Cir., 1962, 299 F. 2d 50; Zupicich v. Esperdy, S.D.N.Y., 1962, 207 F.Supp. 574, 580, fns. 13-14), it seems just that Sovich should receive a new hearing.…1 / 3
-
Veljko Stanisic v. United States Immigr. & Naturalization Serv., 393 F.2d 539 (9th Cir. 1968)…Kai Fu v. Immigration & Naturalization Service, 386 F. 2d 750 (2d Cir. 1967); Sovich v. Esperdy, 319 F. 2d 21 (2d Cir. 1963); Blagaic v. Flagg, 304 F. 2d 623 (7th Cir. 1962); Milutin v. Bouchard, 299 F. 2d 50 (3d Cir. 1962); vacated on other grounds 370 U.S. 292, 82 S.Ct. 1562, 8 L.Ed.2d 501 (1962); Dunat v. Hurney, 297 F. 2d 744 (3d Cir. 1962); Couto v. Shaughnessy, 218 F. 2d 758 (2d Cir. 1955); United States ex rel. Dolenz v. Shaughnessy, 200 F. 2d 288 (2d Cir. 1952); Matter of P, 9 I.N. 368 (1961); Matte…