TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Richard C. Hoy, District Director of Immigration and Naturalization Service, Los Angeles, California v. Arnulfo Rojas-Gutierrez

Richard C. HOY, District Director of Immigration and Naturalization Service, Los Angeles, California, Appellant, v. Arnulfo ROJAS-GUTIERREZ, Appellee

Hoy v. Arnulfo Rojas-Gutierrez, 267 F.2d 490 (9th Cir. 1959)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided
April 3, 1959
Docket
No. 16105_1
Judges
Fee, Barnes, Hamlin
Citations
267 F.2d 4901959 U.S. App. LEXIS 4116

Opinion — Fee

' JAMES ALGER FEE, Circuit Judge.

Arnulfo Rojas-Gutierrez was ordered deported to Mexico after a hearing on October 19, 1956. He had been previously convicted in the California state courts on March 11, 1938, November 13, 1945, and April 8, 1949, each time for .having had in his possession the flowering tops and leaves of Indian Hemp (Cannabis Sativa Marijuana). These offenses constituted the sole ground for the order.

Previously, he had been subject of deportation proceedings on the ground that he had been convicted of the crime of burglary before his entry into the United States. The hearing terminated by a finding in his favor.

After the present order of deportation, he initiated a suit in the nature of a declaratory judgment proceeding. The sole cause of the order of deportation lies in the provisions of Section 241(a) (11) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 ( 8 U.S.C.A. § 1251 ). There were not issues of fact in the declaratory judgment proceeding. The trial court issued a declaratory judgment to the effect that Arnulfo Rojas-Gutierrez was not deportable. The District Director took this appeal.

The sole question is whether appellee is subject to deportation because he has been found guilty under the California state statutes of simple possession of marijuana. This Court has ruled today, in Hoy, District Director v. Mendoza-Rivera, 267 F.2d 451 that the statute does not include such cases. The District Judge in this case purported to follow the Mendoza-Rivera holding in the District Court. Nevertheless, the authority of Judge Mathes strengthens that position, and we find it in accord with our own thinking. Rojas-Gutierrez v. Hoy, D.C., 161 F.Supp. 448 .

Affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1961: 11963: 11965: 11967: 11981: 119612026peak 1961 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. M9 I. & N. Dec. 181 (BIA 1961)
  2. In re Carmona224 F. Supp. 497 (S.D. Cal. 1963)
  3. Baier v. Parker523 F. Supp. 288 (M.D. La. 1981)
  4. United States v. First National Bank & Trust Co. of Lexington263 F. Supp. 268 (E.D. Ky. 1967)
  5. Doroteo Fuentes-Torres v. Immigration and Naturalization Service344 F.2d 911 (9th Cir. 1965)

Most recent

  1. Baier v. Parker523 F. Supp. 288 (M.D. La. 1981)
  2. United States v. First National Bank & Trust Co. of Lexington263 F. Supp. 268 (E.D. Ky. 1967)
  3. Doroteo Fuentes-Torres v. Immigration and Naturalization Service344 F.2d 911 (9th Cir. 1965)
  4. In re Carmona224 F. Supp. 497 (S.D. Cal. 1963)
  5. M9 I. & N. Dec. 181 (BIA 1961)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 2

DepthCaseCited by
Hoy v. Mendoza-Rivera, 267 F.2d 451 (9th Cir. 1959) 12
Rojas-Gutierrez v. Hoy, 161 F. Supp. 448 (S.D. Cal. 1958) 11

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list