Yun-Sing Tuan v. Immigration & Naturalization Service

Yun-Sing TUAN, Petitioner, v. IMMIGRATION & NATURALIZATION SERVICE, Respondent

Yun-Sing Tuan v. Immigration & Naturalization Serv., 531 F.2d 1337 (5th Cir. 1976)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided: July 6, 1976
Docket: No. 76--1061
Judges: Brown, Gewin, Morgan, Per Curiam
Citations: 531 F.2d 1337

Cited by 9 2 descriptions by later courts Original from court

Opinion — Per Curiam

*1338 PER CURIAM:

Tuan petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals dismissing his appeal from a decision of the Immigration Judge in a deportation proceeding which denied an adjustment of his status to permanent resident. We affirm the Board’s order.

The Government began deportation proceedings against Tuan in September 1973. At his show cause hearing petitioner conceded his deportability under 8 U.S.C.A. § 1251 (a)(9), but he sought an adjustment of his status from nonimmigrant to permanent resident, 8 U.S.C.A. § 1255 . The Immigration Judge refused Tuan’s request for adjustment, (i) on the basis that he was statutorily ineligible for readjustment because his required labor certification, 8 U.S. C.A. § 1182(a)(14), was issued pursuant to misrepresentation by Tuan, and (ii) in the exercise of his discretion on the basis of his finding that Tuan had a preconceived intent to remain in the United States which was not balanced by any equities warranting adjustment of status. The Board dismissed the appeal on the basis of (ii), Tuan’s preconceived intent.

On direct appeal to this Court, 8 U.S.C.A. § 1105a, we review the denial of discretionary relief narrowly.

Jarecha v. Immigration & Naturalization Service, 5 Cir., 1969, 417 F.2d 220, 224 . We find that the Immigration Judge’s conclusion that Tuan had preconceived intent to remain in the United States was based on substantial evidence 2

and was not arbitrary or capricious. Tuan was accorded all of the requirements of due process by a full hearing before the Immigration Judge and appeal to the Board as well as this Court.

AFFIRMED.

. The Board did not rule on (i) because of conflicting evidence concerning the issuance of the labor certification.

. Tuan entered on a business visitor’s visa representing the Full Hand Company of Taiwan. Within a month he filed an application for his labor certification using a letter of recommendation prepared by a Taiwan employer six months before Tuan’s arrival in the United States.

How later courts describe this case

Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 2 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.

(applying substantial evidence test in review of denial of another form of discretionary relief)

Coriolan v. Immigration & Naturalization Serv., 559 F.2d 993 (5th Cir. 1977)

Cited by 9 cases

View all citing references →

U.S. Courts of Appeals9

Relies on it most ⓘ

Wing Ding Chan v. Immigration and Naturalization Service631 F.2d 978 (D.C. Cir. 1980)
Raymond Coriolan and Willy Bonannee v. Immigration & Naturalization Service559 F.2d 993 (5th Cir. 1977)
Dong Sik Kwon v. Immigration and Naturalization Service646 F.2d 909 (5th Cir. 1981)
Carlos Amilcar Umanzor Umanzor v. David H. Lambert, District Director, U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service782 F.2d 1299 (5th Cir. 1986)
Heriberto Carrasco-Favela v. Immigration & Naturalization Service563 F.2d 1220 (5th Cir. 1977)
Adnan Sadik Faddah and Laina Kaarina Faddah v. Immigration & Naturalization Service553 F.2d 491 (5th Cir. 1977)

Most recent

Carlos Amilcar Umanzor Umanzor v. David H. Lambert, District Director, U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service782 F.2d 1299 (5th Cir. 1986)
Patel v. Minnix663 F.2d 1042 (11th Cir. 1981)
Dong Sik Kwon v. Immigration and Naturalization Service646 F.2d 909 (5th Cir. 1981)
Wing Ding Chan v. Immigration and Naturalization Service631 F.2d 978 (D.C. Cir. 1980)
Dong Sik Kwon v. Immigration and Naturalization Service610 F.2d 353 (5th Cir. 1980)
Eduardo Von Pervieux and Guistina Boschetti De Von Pervieux v. Immigration and Naturalization Service572 F.2d 114 (3d Cir. 1978)

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

Depth	Case	Cited by
	Navinchandra Mafatlal Jarecha v. Immigration & Naturalization Serv., United States Dep't of Justice, 417 F.2d 220 (5th Cir. 1969)	39

`/`	Focus the search box
`j` `k`	Next / previous result
`Enter`	Open the selected result
`x`	Add / remove the selected result from the download list
`n` `p`	Next / previous search term in a case
`c`	Copy the citation of the current case
`+` `−`	Larger / smaller reading text
`?`	Show this list