U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, 1962

Giova v. Rosenberg

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Decided June 15, 1962

308 F.2d 347 (Federal Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

David C. Marcus, Los Angeles, Cal., for appellant., Francis C. Whelan, U. S. Atty., Donald A. Fareed, Asst. U. S. Atty., Chief of Civil Section, and Gordon Levy, Asst. U. S. Atty., Los Angeles, Cal., for appel-lee.

Cases that cite this one

19 later published cases cite this decision.

Lam Man Chi, Lum Hong and Young Sau Yu v. E. P. Bouchard, as District Director for the Immigration and Naturalization Service of New Jersey (3d Cir. 1963)
George Job Variamparambil, A/K/A V.J. George v. Immigration and Naturalization Service (7th Cir. 1987)
Russel K. Williams, Et Ux. v. Immigration and Naturalization Service (9th Cir. 1986)
Josef Bak v. United States Immigration and Naturalization Service, Teresa Dworniczak v. United States Immigration and Naturalization Service (3d Cir. 1982)
Alejandro Ravancho and Zenaida Ravancho v. Immigration and Naturalization Service (3d Cir. 1981)
Au Yi Lau v. United States Immigration and Naturalization Service (D.C. Cir. 1977)
Chul Hi Kim v. Immigration and Naturalization Service (7th Cir. 1966)
Maria Garcia-Gonzales v. Immigration and Naturalization Service (9th Cir. 1965)
Foti v. Immigration & Naturalization Service (Supreme Court of the United States 1963)
Ponciano Murillo-Aguilera v. Immigration and Naturalization Service (9th Cir. 1963)
Shaffiq Kassab v. Immigration and Naturalization Service (9th Cir. 1963)
O'SULLIVAN (Board of Immigration Appeals 1963)
Mavronas v. Ryan (United States District Court for the District of Connecticut 1963)
Mai Kai Fong, Also Known as Yee Wing Young v. Immigration and Naturalization Service (9th Cir. 1962)
No. 17657 (9th Cir. 1962)
Peter Holz v. Immigration and Naturalization Service (9th Cir. 1962)
Edgar Allan Gallegos and Ana Gloria Gallegos v. Immigration and Naturalization Service at Los Angeles, California (9th Cir. 1962)
Pedro Arreche-Barcelona v. Immigration and Naturalization Service at Los Angeles, California (9th Cir. 1962)
Zupicich v. Esperdy (District Court, S.D. New York 1962)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

PER CURIAM.

This court’s jurisdiction is here invoked under the provisions of Public Law 87-301 (75 Stat. 650), 8 U.S.C.A. § 1105a, effective September 26, 1961, which provides for “the judicial review of all final orders of deportation.”

The sole deportation order presently outstanding with respect to this petitioner was made April 2, 1957. On September 15, 1957 the Board of Immigration Appeals dismissed petitioner’s appeal from that order. The deportation order referred to above is still in full force and effect, and the record before us indicates it has never been revoked.

Petitioner did move to reopen the proceedings before the Board of Immigration Appeals. This request was denied November 3, 1961. Petitioner is now appealing directly to this court from the denial of his motion to reopen; not from the order of deportation.

We have no jurisdiction to hear this appeal. It is dismissed.

We are tempted to discuss the merits of this case. But we cannot reach the rationale behind Pino v. Nicolls, 1 Cir. 1954, 215 F.2d 237, at 243, reversed per curiam, Pino v. Landon, 1955, 349 U.S. 901, 75 S.Ct. 576, 99 L.Ed. 1239, or the effect of the Attorney General’s holdings in the Matter of A-, 8 I. & N.Dec. 429; Matter of B-, 7 I. & N.Dec. 166; In the Matter of G-, 5 I. & N.Dec. 129, for this court cannot give advisory opinions.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.