United States v. Osuna-Picos, 26549
| Decision Date | 26 May 1971 |
| Docket Number | No. 26549,26549 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Gustavo OSUNA-PICOS, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
George Haverstick (argued), San Diego, Cal., for defendant-appellant.
Joseph Sureck (argued), Regional Counsel, I & NS, San Pedro, Cal., Harry D. Steward, U. S. Atty., Brian E. Michaels, Asst. U.S. Atty., San Diego, Cal., for plaintiff-appellee.
Before BARNES and DUNIWAY, Circuit Judges, and GRAY, District Judge.*
Appellant seeks review of his conviction under 8 U.S.C. § 1326 for illegally re-entering the United States after deportation. Our jurisdiction rests upon 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Both entries into the United States were made upon fraudulent claims of citizenship. Appellant's defense at trial was based upon the fact that he is the child of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence. He now asserts that the deportation order was rendered invalid by 8 U.S.C. § 1251(f), thereby negating an essential element of the crime. The trial court, 319 F.Supp. 558, rejected this contention and upheld the order of deportation on the basis of the decision of the Attorney General in Matter of Lee, Interim Decision No. 1960 (1969).
Subsequently, we considered the scope of § 1251(f) and reversed the said Attorney General's decision in Lee Fook Chuey v. Immigration and Naturalization Service, 439 F.2d 244, (9th Cir. Sept. 29, 1970), pet. rh. denied (Feb. 11, 1971). In that case we held that an alien who has the requisite family ties and meets the qualitative requirements of the Immigration and Naturalization Act is entitled to the relief provided by § 1251(f), even though he has obtained entry by misrepresentation. No petition for certiorari has been filed by the government.
Because this case is factually indistinguishable from Chuey, we must reverse the judgment of conviction. It is so ordered.
I agree that this case is covered by the opinion of this Court in Lee Fook Chuey. Being bound by that decision, I concur in this one.
* Hon. William P. Gray, United States District Judge, Central District of California, sitting by designation.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
43 501 Reid v. Immigration and Naturalization Service 8212 1541
...is for Congress to amend it, not for this Court to distort its language and the cases construing it. 1. See also United States v. Osuna-Picos, 443 F.2d 907 (CA9 1971); Gonzalez de Moreno v. INS, 492 F.2d 532 (CA5 1974); Gonzalez v. INS, 493 F.2d 461 (CA5 1974); Bufalino v. INS, 473 F.2d 728......
-
U.S. v. Gasca-Kraft
...394 F.2d 785, 789 (9th Cir. 1968) (citing United States v. Bowles, 331 F.2d 742, 750 (3rd Cir. 1964)); See also United States v. Osuna-Picos, 443 F.2d 907 (9th Cir. 1971) (reversing a § 1326 conviction on the ground that the deportation was unlawful); United States v. Bowles, supra. ("When ......
-
U.S. v. Dekermenjian, 74-2452
...the Third Circuit's Bowles opinion, supra, which, as we have above mentioned, upholds such a right. Cf. United States v. Osuna-Picos, 443 F.2d 907 (9th Cir. 1971) (per curiam), in which, again without discussing the propriety of a collateral attack, we reversed a 1326 conviction because the......
-
Castro-Guerrero v. Immigration and Naturalization Service
...parent, or a child of a United States citizen or of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence.5 See, e. g., United States v. Osuna-Picos, 9 Cir., 1971, 443 F.2d 907; Lee Fook Chuey v. INS, 9 Cir., 1971, 439 F.2d 244.6 Ruiz-Salazar is also before us on rehearing today.7 In Cortez-Fl......