TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Francisco Valenzuela Jiminez v. District Director, United States Immigration and Naturalization Service

Francisco Valenzuela JIMINEZ, Petitioner, v. DISTRICT DIRECTOR, UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE, Respondent

Jiminez v. Dist. Dir., United States Immigration & Naturalization Serv., 441 F.2d 1149 (9th Cir. 1971)
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 28, 1971
Docket
No. 26765
Judges
Merrill, Browning, Kilkenny
Citations
441 F.2d 11491971 U.S. App. LEXIS 10510

Opinion — Per Curiam

PER CURIAM:

Jiminez is a native and citizen of the Philippines who entered the United States on March 8, 1969, as a non-immigrant in transit for a temporary period. He was authorized to remain in this country only until July 26, 1969. When he overstayed his authorization, deportation proceedings were initiated, and the inquiry officer ordered Jiminez deported. On appeal, the Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed the order of the inquiry officer.

In this petition for review, Jiminez asserts that the inquiry officer abused his discretion in denying Jiminez’s motion to terminate the deportation proceedings in order that he might file a petition for naturalization pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1440 (a). Jiminez claims to be qualified for naturalization under this section through his service in the United States Navy. The inquiry officer believed that Jiminez was ineligible for naturalization under the statute because his enlistment took place outside the *1150 United States. Jiminez maintains that he enlisted aboard a United States vessel berthed in a foreign port and that such an enlistment does take place “in the United States” within the meaning of section 1440(a).

We do not reach this contention. Subsection (b) (1) of section 1440 provides that an outstanding final order of deportability is no bar to the filing of a petition for naturalization under the section. The Board of Immigration Appeals, in its de novo review, affirmed the inquiry officer solely on this ground.

Perhaps under some circumstances deportation might adversely affect a petitioner's ability successfully to prosecute his claim for naturalization, but no such circumstances were suggested during an administrative review of the present case. Jiminez’s claim for naturalization rests on a technical legal point which does not require his presence in this country for a just resolution.

No other showing was made in support of the motion to terminate the deportation proceedings. Accordingly, the record does not support petitioner’s contention that the Board abused its discretion in denying the motion.

The petition to review is dismissed.

How later courts describe this case

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

1994: 12008: 119942026peak 1994 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Moshe Gottesman v. U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service33 F.3d 383 (4th Cir. 1994)
  2. Olmos-Beltran v. Mukasey270 F. App'x 486 (9th Cir. 2008)

Most recent

  1. Olmos-Beltran v. Mukasey270 F. App'x 486 (9th Cir. 2008)
  2. Moshe Gottesman v. U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service33 F.3d 383 (4th Cir. 1994)

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 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

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