Chan v. Immigration and Naturalization Service, No. 79-7356
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit) |
| Writing for the Court | Before KENNEDY and FARRIS; FARRIS |
| Citation | 629 F.2d 579 |
| Docket Number | No. 79-7356 |
| Decision Date | 02 October 1980 |
| Parties | Suzanna Ooi-Woon CHAN, Petitioner, v. IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE, Respondent. |
Page 579
v.
IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE, Respondent.
Ninth Circuit.
Decided Oct. 2, 1980.
Page 580
Donald L. Ungar, Milton T. Simmons, San Francisco, Cal., on brief; Dana Marks Keener, San Francisco, Cal., for petitioner.
James P. Morris, Atty., Washington, D. C., on brief; Joseph F. Ciolino, Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C., for respondent.
Petition to Review a Decision of The U.S. Immigration & Naturalization Service.
Before KENNEDY and FARRIS, Circuit Judges, and FITZGERALD, * District Judge.
FARRIS, Circuit Judge:
Suzanna Ooi-Woon Chan petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals finding her deportable. We affirm.
Chan a native and citizen of Malaysia, married a lawful permanent resident of the United States while in this country on a student visa. After she had returned to Malaysia, her husband filed a visa petition to accord her preference status pursuant to 8 U.S.C. §§ 1153(a)(2) and 1154(a). The petition was approved April 8, 1971. On January 28, 1972, while still in Malaysia, Chan was served with a petition for annulment of her marriage. On March 22, 1972, she obtained an immigrant visa for the United States, apparently unaware that on that same date her marriage was annulled in California. She was admitted to the United States on April 9, 1972.
Five years later, the Immigration and Naturalization Service discovered that her marriage had been annulled when Chan revealed this fact in applying for naturalization. Deportation proceedings were commenced against her on July 21, 1978. The immigration judge ruled that Chan was not deportable. The Board of Immigration Appeals reversed. It held that Chan could have been excluded at the time of her entry to the United States and is therefore deportable.
Chan contends that she properly entered the United States because approval of her visa petition was not properly revoked. She argues that 8 C.F.R. § 205.1(a)(4), which provides for automatic revocation of approval of a petition upon termination of the marital relationship, is limited by 8 U.S.C. § 1155 which states that any revocation of approval of a petition is not effective unless notice of revocation is sent to the beneficiary prior to his or her journey to the United States. She relies on In re Salazar, Interim Dec. No. 2741 (Board of Immigration Appeals, November...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Harris v. U.S., No. 84-2237
...himself. Fisher v. United States, 425 U.S. 391, 397, 96 S.Ct. 1569, 1574, 48 Page 458 L.Ed.2d 39 (1976); United States v. Horton, 629 F.2d at 579. Thus, the district court did not err in denying the motion to quash and in enforcing the 2. Use of Summonses For Criminal Investigation Harris' ......
-
Pena-Urrutia v. Immigration and Naturalization Service, PENA-URRUTI
...by clear, convincing, and unequivocal evidence. Woodby v. INS, 385 U.S. 276, 87 S.Ct. 483, 17 L.Ed.2d 362 (1966). See Chan v. INS, 629 F.2d 579 (9th Cir. 1980); Garcia-Jaramillo v. INS, supra. While Pena was not specifically charged under subsection 212(a) (19), he has affirmatively alleged......
-
Harris v. U.S., No. 84-2237
...himself. Fisher v. United States, 425 U.S. 391, 397, 96 S.Ct. 1569, 1574, 48 Page 458 L.Ed.2d 39 (1976); United States v. Horton, 629 F.2d at 579. Thus, the district court did not err in denying the motion to quash and in enforcing the 2. Use of Summonses For Criminal Investigation Harris' ......
-
Pena-Urrutia v. Immigration and Naturalization Service, PENA-URRUTI
...by clear, convincing, and unequivocal evidence. Woodby v. INS, 385 U.S. 276, 87 S.Ct. 483, 17 L.Ed.2d 362 (1966). See Chan v. INS, 629 F.2d 579 (9th Cir. 1980); Garcia-Jaramillo v. INS, supra. While Pena was not specifically charged under subsection 212(a) (19), he has affirmatively alleged......