Spata v. Immigration and Naturalization Service, 440
| Decision Date | 11 May 1971 |
| Docket Number | Docket 33715.,No. 440,440 |
| Parties | Vincenzo SPATA, Giuseppa Spata and Angelo Spata, Petitioners, v. IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE, Respondent. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit |
Ferro & Cuccia, New York City, for petitioners.
Stanley H. Wallenstein, Sp. Asst. U. S. Atty., S. D. New York (Whitney North Seymour, Jr., U. S. Atty., and Joseph P. Marro, Sp. Asst. U. S. Atty., S. D. New York, on the brief), for respondent.
Before WATERMAN and FRIENDLY, Circuit Judges, and McLEAN, District Judge.*
Vincenzo Spata, a citizen of Italy, petitions to review an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals dated April 9, 1969, which granted him the privilege of voluntarily departing from the United States within a specified period and went on to provide that if he failed to do so he should be deported to his native Italy. Although petitioner's wife, Giuseppa Spata, and his son Angelo, are also named as petitioners, they were not parties to the deportation proceeding instituted by the Immigration and Naturalization Service against Vincenzo and make no claim on their own account. They have joined as petitioners only to take advantage of the provisions of 8 U. S.C. § 1105a(a) (3) which grant them an automatic stay of deportation pending determination of the petition. We have concluded that the decision of the Board in Vincenzo's case, which is the only decision before us, was correct, and accordingly, we deny the petition to review.
The somewhat complicated procedural steps which have taken place over the years prior to the issuance of the Board's final order can best be understood by setting out a brief chronological summary of them. Vincenzo Spata, a native and citizen of Italy, entered the United States on September 23, 1964, as a visitor for pleasure. He was authorized to remain until July 15, 1965. He remained in this country illegally beyond that date, with the result that he was taken into custody by the Immigration and Naturalization Service on October 10, 1966. On the next day, October 11, 1966, the petitioner's employer filed on his behalf a visa petition seeking to accord him preference quota status pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1153(a) (6). This petition was approved by the District Director on May 24, 1967, valid until October 10, 1967.
Petitioner was granted a sixth preference. Such a preference is applicable to persons capable of performing labor for which a shortage of employable persons exists in the United States. Visas are to be made available to sixth preference holders only to the extent that the 20,000 numerical limitation on visas authorized for nationals of any single foreign state, 8 U.S.C. § 1152(a), has not been exhausted by the needs of the five prior preferred classes.
On August 17, 1967, petitioner made application to the District Director, based upon his approved visa petition, for adjustment of his status to that of an alien lawfully admitted to permanent residence. This application was made pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1255 and was addressed to the Attorney General's discretion. On May 27, 1968, the District Director denied the application because of petitioner's rather extensive criminal record in Italy. The District Director granted petitioner the privilege of voluntary departure from the United States up to June 6, 1968.
Petitioner failed to depart. Consequently, in September 1968, the District Director instituted deportation proceedings against him by order to show cause...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States ex rel. Parco v. Morris
...360 F.2d 715, 718 (2d Cir. 1966). Compare 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(B), (C), (D) (review of legal questions), with id. § 706(2)(A); Spata v. INS, 442 F.2d 1013 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 404 U.S. 857, 92 S.Ct. 107, 30 L.Ed.2d 99 (1971); Discaya v. INS, 339 F.Supp. 1034 (N.D.Ill.1972) (INS discretion ......
-
Matter of Lennon
...remain in the United States. Such claims have been consistently rejected. Vassiliou v. INS, 461 F.2d 1193 (C.A. 10, 1972); Spata v. INS, 442 F.2d 1013 (C.A. 2, 1971), cert. denied, 404 U.S. 857 (1971); Armstrong v. INS, 445 F.2d 1395 (C.A. 9, 1971); Bowes v. District Director, 443 F.2d 30 (......
-
Matter of Quintero
...officials. See Soon Bok Yoon v. INS, supra; Vergel v. INS, 536 F.2d 755 (8 Cir. 1976); Zacharakis v. Howerton, supra; Spata v. INS, 442 F.2d 1013 (2 Cir.), cert. denied, 404 U.S. 857 (1971); Discaya v. INS, supra. Inasmuch as deferred action status is a function of the District Director's p......
-
Lennon v. United States, 73 Civ. 4543.
...discretion of the District Director and is unreviewable in any Court or administrative proceeding, citing Spata v. Immigration and Naturalization Service, 442 F.2d 1013 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 404 U.S. 857, 92 S.Ct. 107, 30 L.Ed.2d 99 (1971); and Riva v. Immigration and Naturalization Serv......