TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

James Lee v. Immigration and Naturalization Service

James LEE, Petitioner, v. IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE, Respondent

Lee v. Immigration & Naturalization Serv., 446 F.2d 881 (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
August 11, 1971
Docket
No. 25954
Judges
Browning, Carter, Per Curiam, Trask
Citations
446 F.2d 8811971 U.S. App. LEXIS 8588

Opinion — Per Curiam

PER CURIAM:

James Lee petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals affirming an order of the special inquiry officer which denied him an adjustment of status under 8 U.S.C. § 1255 . Lee contends the denial was an abuse of discretion.

The officer and the Board denied Lee’s application as a matter of discretion because they found he had not demonstrated his bona fide nonimmigrant status at the time of entering the United States on a nonimmigrant visa. This is a proper factor for the Board’s consideration, Castillo v. Immigration and Naturalization Service, 350 F.2d 1, 3-4 (9th Cir. 1965), and there was evidence to support the Board’s finding.

Petitioner argues that the decision of the Board may lead an American consul abroad to reject any subsequent application by petitioner for documentation on the ground that he obtained his nonimmigrant visa through fraud. 8 U.S.C. § 1182 (a) (19). At oral argument the Board’s counsel agreed that the seriousness of the consequences which may flow from the Board’s exercise of discretion is a factor in determining whether that discretion has been abused.

The Board stated in its decision, however, that “the order for petitioner’s deportation is not based upon any charge of fraud or misrepresentation”; and the Board’s brief in this court states that the decisions of the special inquiry officer *882 and the Board “contain no charges against Lee of fraud or misrepresentation upon which any denial of a visa application could be based.” We have acted upon these assurances in concluding that, although the record is not strong, it is sufficient to sustain the Board’s action.

The petition to review is denied and the order of the Board is affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

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

1977: 11978: 31979: 11993: 119772026peak 1978 · 3

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 1

DepthCaseCited by
Castillo v. Immigration & Naturalization Serv., 350 F.2d 1 (9th Cir. 1965) 16

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