U.S. v. Farias-Arroyo, FARIAS-ARROY
| Decision Date | 29 December 1975 |
| Docket Number | D,No. 75--2830,FARIAS-ARROY,75--2830 |
| Citation | 528 F.2d 904 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Luisefendant-Appellant. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
Before KOELSCH and HUFSTEDLER, Circuit Judges, and ORRICK, * District Judge.
This is an appeal from a judgment of conviction for violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326 proscribing the presence in the United States of an alien 'who has been arrested and deported,' unless he first obtains permission from the Attorney General to re-enter.
The only significant question we face is whether the government proved, as the statute requires, that appellant was 'arrested and deported.' The facts are these:
Appellant was discovered illegally in this country in October of 1973. An order to appear and show cause why he should not be deported was issued, and a deportation hearing was held on January 30, 1974. Appellant was found deportable. A warrant of deportation (Form I--205) was issued, and appellant was notified thereof. On March 19, 1974, appellant voluntarily presented himself to immigration officials at the Mexican border, turned over to them the deportation letter served on him (Form I--166), and left the country. He was thereafter found in this country in January of 1975.
Throughout the proceedings brought to deport him, appellant was never physically detained in custody, and he now contends he was never 'arrested.' We follow the Fifth Circuit, for the reasons set forth in United States v. Wong Kim Bo, 466 F.2d 1298 (5th Cir. 1972), opinion on rehearing, 472 F.2d 720, in holding that the statutory term 'arrest' does not necessarily contemplate pre-deportation physical detention, and that, within the statutory and regulatory scheme,
The government established here that a warrant of deportation was issued, 1 and consequently appellant's contention is without merit. 2
Affirmed.
* The Honorable William H. Orrick, Jr., United States District Judge for the Northern...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
U.S. v. Wittgenstein, 97-2379
...reached. See id. (citing United States v. Wong Kim Bo, 472 F.2d 720, 722 (5th Cir.1972) (Wong Kim Bo II ), and United States v. Farias-Arroyo, 528 F.2d 904, 905 (9th Cir.1975)). Therefore, we find that the district court understated the legal standard for finding an arrest under 8 U.S.C. § ......
-
U.S. v. Valencia-Espinoza
...or was found in the United States (5) without first obtaining the Attorney General's permission to reenter. See United States v. Farias-Arroyo, 528 F.2d 904, 904 (9th Cir.1975); accord, United States v. Hernandez, 693 F.2d 996, 998 (10th Cir.1982), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1222 (1983). Establ......
-
U.S. v. Hernandez
...on liberty to constitute an 'arrest,' even without custodial manhandling and physical restraint ...." See also United States v. Farias-Arroyo, 9 Cir., 528 F.2d 904, 905. Defendant argues that the four deportations were unlawful because he was not advised of his right of asylum. The governme......
-
USA. v. Casillas, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE
..."the term `arrested' in 8 U.S.C. § 1326 requires that a warrant of deportation be served on the alien." Id.; cf. United States v. Farias-Arroyo, 528 F.2d 904 (9th Cir. 1975) (finding that a warrant had in fact been issued, and holding that the appellant's claim that he had not been "arreste......