Gallegos v. Hoy, 15744.
| Decision Date | 29 December 1958 |
| Docket Number | No. 15744.,15744. |
| Parties | Edgar Allan GALLEGOS and Gloria Gallegos, also known as Ana Gloria Sasso Valdivieso, Appellants, v. Richard C. HOY, as District Director for the Los Angeles District, Immigration and Naturalization Service, United States Department of Justice, Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
David O. Marcus, Los Angeles, Cal., for appellants.
Laughlin E. Waters, U. S. Atty., Richard A. Lavine, Mary G. Creutz, Asst. U. S. Attys., Los Angeles, Cal., for appellee.
Before POPE, CHAMBERS and HAMLEY, Circuit Judges.
The alien appellants, husband and wife, are under orders of deportation. The husband is a citizen of Nicaragua and the wife a citizen of El Salvador. Both legally entered the United States for permanent residence, he in 1945 and she in 1951.
The events which have brought the appellants to the gate of deportation revolve around an alien girl Hilda Medrano-Represa from El Salvador. Hilda came out of El Salvador to Tijuana, Mexico, early in 1954, with Mr. and Mrs. Gallegos coincident with the return of the couple to the United States after a visit in El Salvador. Hilda was to work as a domestic for the couple at Los Angeles. For several weeks Hilda waited in Tijuana while an attempt was being made in her behalf to secure her legal admission into the United States. Eventually, in April, Hilda crossed into the United States avoiding immigration officers and procedures. The reason may have been impatience with immigration procedures or it may have been that the Gallegos could no longer find a place in Tijuana for the girl to stay. While at various times, under oath, the appellants and Hilda have varied their accounts of Hilda's crossing, there is ample evidence that within five years after their last entry (from Tijuana) Mr. and Mrs. Gallegos did encourage, induce, assist, abet or aid an alien (Hilda) to enter the United States in violation of law. See 8 U.S.C.A. § 1251(a) (13).
The only serious question is whether it was done for "gain" as required by the statute. At no time after coming into the United States where she has been working for appellants has Hilda received over $20.00 or $25.00 per month plus her room and board. This domestic service at home to look after the couple's small child and take care of the house has enabled Mrs. Gallegos to get outside employment.
Upon review the district court upheld the deportation orders and we affirm.
Evidence was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lam Man Chi v. Bouchard
...of the 1961 Act. Cf. Gallegos v. Immigration and Naturalization Service, 310 F. 2d 688 (9 Cir., 1962), in connection with Gallegos v. Hoy, 262 F.2d 665 (9 Cir., 1958). But see Holz v. Immigration and Naturalization Service, 309 F.2d 452 (9 Cir., In Zupicich v. Esperdy, 207 F.Supp. 574 (S.D.......
-
In re L-S-
...principles. Id. (citing United States v. Merkt, 794 F.2d 950 (5th Cir. 1986), cert. denied, 480 U.S. 946 (1987); Gallegos v. Hoy, 262 F.2d 665 (9th Cir. 1958), cert. denied, 360 U.S. 935 (1959)). We could not conclude that the entire class of persons convicted under former section 274(a) ac......
-
In re L-S-, Interim Decision #3386.
...principles. Id. (citing United States v. Merkt, 794 F.2d 950 (5th Cir. 1986), cert. denied, 480 U.S. 946 (1987); Gallegos v. Hoy, 262 F.2d 665 (9th Cir. 1958), cert. denied, 360 U.S. 935 (1959)). We could not conclude that the entire class of persons convicted under former section 274(a) ac......
-
Matter of Tiwari
...an additional showing that the alien acted "for gain" in assisting aliens to enter the United States illegally. See Gallegos v. Hoy, 262 F.2d 665 (9th Cir. 1958), cert. denied, 360 U.S. 935 (1959). In deportation proceedings the Service generally bears the burden of proving an alien's depor......