Munoz-Casarez v. Immigration and Naturalization Service, MUNOZ-CASARE
| Citation | 511 F.2d 947 |
| Decision Date | 18 February 1975 |
| Docket Number | MUNOZ-CASARE,P,No. 74--1368,74--1368 |
| Parties | Eusibioetitioner, v. IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE, Respondent. |
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit) |
Robert S. Bixby, San Francisco, Cal., for petitioner.
James L. Browning, Jr., U.S. Atty., San Francisco, Cal., for respondent.
Before MERRILL and TRASK, Circuit Judges, JAMESON, * District Judge.
Petitioner is an alien, a native an citizen of Mexico, who was admitted to the United States for permanent residence on June 13, 1956. In July, 1969, he went to Mexico to visit his parents and a sister who was ill, and was absent from this country for about one month. On January 26, 1970, he was convicted in the Superior Court of the County of Ventura, State of California, of the offense,
Petitioner is an alien, a native and citizen of voluntary manslaughter of his former wife, the mother of his four children. On April 18, 1973, an Order to Show Cause and Notice of Hearing was issued, charging that petitioner was subject to deportation pursuant to § 241(a)(4) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1251(a)(4), which provides:
'(a) Any alien in the United States (including an alien crewman) shall, upon the order of the Attorney General, be deported who--
(4) is convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude committed within five years after entry and either sentenced to confinement or confined therefor in a prison or corrective institution, for a year or more * * *.'
Following hearing the immigration judge held that petitioner should be deported, and the ruling was upheld by the Board of Immigration Appeals. This petition for review was then filed. The sole question presented is whether petitioner's return to this country, following his one month absence in 1969, constituted an entry under § 241(a)(4).
Entry is defined in § 101(a)(13) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(13). It means any coming of an alien into the United States, except that an alien having a lawful, permanent residence shall not be regarded as making entry if he can satisfy the Attorney General that his departure was 'not intended or reasonably to be expected by him' or was not voluntary.
Rosenberg v. Fleuti, 374 U.S. 449, 83 S.Ct. 1804, 10 L.Ed.2d 1000 (1963), dealt with the meaning of 'intended' as used in § 101(a)(13) and construed it as referring to 'an intent to depart in a manner which can be regarded as meaningfully interruptive of the alien's permanent residence.' 374 U.S. at 462, 83 S.Ct. at 1812. Among the criteria to be considered are length of the absence, purpose of the visit and whether travel documents are necessary. In Fleuti, the absence from the United States was for a few hours, and application of § 101(a)(13) rendered the alien excludable on re-entry. The Court held the return to this country under ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Romalez-Alcaide, Interim Decision Number 3475
...1987) (holding that a departure of more than 90 days in order to bring family to the United States was not an entry); Munoz-Casarez v. INS, 511 F.2d 947 (9th Cir. 1975) (holding that a 30-day departure to visit family constituted an entry). The substitution of a simple, objective standard b......
-
De Oliveira v. USINS, CV 93-0624-TJH(GHK).
...documents petitioner might have had did not negate her plain intent not to disrupt her application process.19 Munoz-Casarez v. INS, 511 F.2d 947 (9th Cir.1975) (per curiam) does not compel a different result. There, petitioner had left the country to visit his parents and a sick sister. He ......
-
Jubilado v. U.S., 86-1760
...on his return and the continuity of his residence in the United States. The BIA and district court relied on Munoz-Casarez v. INS, 511 F.2d 947 (9th Cir.1975) (per curiam), for their decision that Jubilado "entered" the United States in August 1982. Munoz-Casarez, a permanent resident alien......
-
Kamheangpatiyooth v. Immigration and Naturalization Service, 77-3767
...Appeals dismissed petitioner's appeal, stating simply, "(t)he decision of the immigration judge was correct," citing Munoz-Casarez v. INS, 511 F.2d 947 (9th Cir. 1975), and Matter of Janati-Ataie, 14 I & N 216, 221 (Atty.Gen.1972). Section 244(a)(1) permits the Attorney General to consider ......