Londono v. Immigration and Naturalization Service
| Decision Date | 21 October 1970 |
| Docket Number | Docket 34686.,No. 118,118 |
| Citation | 433 F.2d 635 |
| Parties | Cesar LONDONO, Petitioner, v. IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE, Respondent. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit |
Leon Rosen, New York City, for petitioner.
T. Gorman Reilly, Asst. U. S. Atty., S. D. New York (Whitney North Seymour, Jr., U. S. Atty., and Stanley H. Wallenstein, Special Asst. U. S. Atty., S. D. New York, on the brief), for respondent.
Before WATERMAN, ANDERSON and FEINBERG, Circuit Judges.
Petitioner Londono is a native and citizen of Colombia. He entered the United States on March 17, 1969 as a nonimmigrant visitor for pleasure within the meaning of § 101(a) (15) (B) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S. C. § 1101(a) (15) (B). His visitor's visa authorized him to remain in the Country until September 30, 1969.
Two weeks after his entry, petitioner began working full time as a machine operator for the Colorpack Corporation of Happauge, New York. On learning of the petitioner's employment, the Immigration and Naturalization Service commenced deportation proceedings. The Service alleged that the petitioner's acceptance of gainful employment violated a condition of his status as a nonimmigrant visitor for pleasure and thereby rendered the alien deportable pursuant to § 241(a) (9) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1251 (a) (9). At the deportation hearing before a Special Inquiry Officer, petitioner contended that, once he entered the Country as a visitor for pleasure, neither the statutory provisions nor the regulations promulgated under them explicitly prohibited his employment. The Special Inquiry Officer, however, found the alien deportable as charged, and the Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed his decision, ruling that a specific prohibition against employment was unnecessary. We affirm.
Although no statutory or regulatory provision forbids employment by nonimmigrant visitors, the language and structure of the Act leave no doubt that Congress has foreclosed employment to the alien who enters as a visitor for pleasure. A visitor for pleasure is defined in the Act as "an alien (other than one coming for the purpose * * * of performing * * * labor * * *) * * * who is visiting the United States temporarily for pleasure." § 101(a) (15) (B). This statutory definition precludes the granting of a visitor's visa to an alien intending to become employed in this Country and implements, in part, the statutory purpose to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Noel v. Chapman
...for a two-month stay. He did not leave but rather obtained employment in violation of his non-immigrant status. Londono v. INS, 433 F.2d 635 (2d Cir. 1970) (per curiam). He was apprehended on June 7, 1973. Deportation proceedings were promptly commenced, and, at his hearing on June 8, 1973,......
-
Heitland v. Immigration and Naturalization Service
...to 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(14) unless they obtain labor certification from the Department of Labor. See Londono v. Immigration and Naturalization Service, 433 F.2d 635 (2d Cir. 1970) (per curiam) (aliens admitted as visitors may not obtain employment).5 Mr. Heitland paid $703.97 in cash toward t......
-
Muigai v. U.S. I. N. S.
...assistant. This employment was unlawful, § 212(a)(14) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(14); 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(f)(6); Londono v. INS, 433 F.2d 635 (2d Cir. 1970). On April 10, 1981, the INS denied Muigai's latest application and initiated deportation proceedings by issuance of a warrant of depo......
-
Henriques v. IMMIGRATION & NATURALIZATION SERV., BD. OF IMM. APP.
...Kassab v. INS, 322 F.2d 824, 826-827 (9th Cir. 1963), cert. denied, 376 U.S. 910, 84 S.Ct. 665, 11 L.Ed.2d 608 (1964); cf. Londono v. INS, 433 F.2d 635 (2d Cir. 1970).2 Thus counsel, even if furnished, could not have obtained any other result in the administrative proceedings. No justificat......