U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, 1967

Jose Chabolla-Delgado v. Immigration and Naturalization Service

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Decided October 16, 1967 · Merrill, Ely, Byrne

384 F.2d 360 (Federal Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

David C. Marcus, Los Angeles, Cal., for petitioner., William M. Byrne, Jr., U. S. Atty., Herbert M. Schoenberg, Asst. U. S. Atty. (argued), Los Angeles, Cal., Ramsey Clark, Atty. Gen. of U. S., Washington, D. C., Steve Suffin, Atty., I.N.S., San Francisco, Cal., Joseph Sureck, Regional Counsel, I.N.S., San Pedro, Cal., for respondent.

Cases that cite this one

7 later published cases cite this decision.

United States v. Garay-Burgos (United States District Court for the District of Arizona 1997)
American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee v. Meese (United States District Court for the Central District of California 1989)
Zavala v. Bell (United States District Court for the Northern District of California 1978)
Alfred Yvon Letourneur v. Immigration and Naturalization Service (9th Cir. 1976)
United States v. Locke (United States District Court for the District of Idaho 1976)
Lieggi v. United States Immigration & Naturalization Service (District Court, N.D. Illinois 1975)
Kwai Chiu Yuen v. Immigration and Naturalization Service (9th Cir. 1969)

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

PER CURIAM:

Petitioner seeks review of an order of deportation affirmed by the Board of Immigration Appeals. He was found subject to deportation under § 241(a) (11) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1251(a) (11), in that he had been convicted of a violation of § 11530 of the California Health and Safety Code, relating to the illicit possession of marijuana.

Petitioner contends that he was not “convicted” since, after finding him guilty of the charged offense, the state court had suspended sentence and placed him on probation. We have consistently held to the contrary. Gutierrez v. I.N.S., 323 F.2d 593 (9th Cir. 1963), cert. denied 377 U.S. 910, 84 S.Ct. 1171, 12 L.Ed.2d 179 (1964); Wood v. Hoy, 266 F.2d 825 (9th Cir. 1959); Arrellano-Flores v. Hoy, 262 F.2d 667 (9th Cir. 1958), cert. denied, 362 U.S. 921, 80 S.Ct. 673, 4 L.Ed.2d 740 (1960). See also Kelly v. I.N.S., 349 F.2d 473 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 382 U.S. 932, 86 S.Ct. 326, 15 L.Ed.2d 344 (1965); Garcia-Gonzales v. I.N.S., 344 F.2d 804 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 382 U.S. 840, 86 S.Ct. 88, 15 L.Ed.2d 81 (1965).

Petitioner contends that deportation under the circumstances of this case constitutes cruel and unusual punishment. Deportation is not punishment within the meaning of the Eighth Amendment, Bugajewitz v. Adams, 228 U.S. 585, 591, 33 S.Ct. 607, 57 L.Ed. 978 (1913), and is civil, not criminal, in nature. Woodby v. I.N.S., 385 U.S. 276, 285, 87 S.Ct. 483, 17 L.Ed.2d 362 (1966); Harisiades v. Shaughnessy, 342 U.S. 580, 594, 72 S.Ct. 512, 96 L.Ed. 586 (1952).

The order of deportation is affirmed.

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