United States v. Gustavo Osuna-Picos
Cases that cite this one
11 later published cases cite this decision.
- Reid v. Immigration & Naturalization Service (Supreme Court of the United States 1975)
- Jovencia Arce Vitales v. Immigration and Naturalization Service (9th Cir. 1971)
- GABOURIEL (Board of Immigration Appeals 1971)
- Josue Castro-Guerrero v. Immigration and Naturalization Service (5th Cir. 1975)
- United States v. Ramon Gasca-Kraft (9th Cir. 1975)
- United States v. Razmik Levon Dekermenjian (9th Cir. 1974)
- Tomoko Tokugawa v. George K. Rosenberg, District Director, Immigration and Naturalization Service (9th Cir. 1972)
- United States v. Bruce Clifford Palmer (9th Cir. 1972)
- Enrique Hames-Herrera v. George K. Rosenberg, District Director, Immigration and Naturalization Service (9th Cir. 1972)
- MANGABAT (Board of Immigration Appeals 1972)
- Reyes-Cerna v. Immigration & Naturalization Service (District Court, N.D. Illinois 1972)
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
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Gustavo OSUNA-PICOS, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 26549
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
May 26, 1971.
George Haverstick (argued), San Diego, Cal., for defendant-appellant.
Joseph Sureck (argued), Regional Counsel, I & NS, San Pedro, Cal., Harry D. Steward, U.S. Atty., Brian E. Michaels, Asst. U.S. Atty., San Diego, Cal., for plaintiff-appellee.
Before BARNES and DUNIWAY, Circuit Judges, and GRAY, District Judge.1
PER CURIAM:
Appellant seeks review of his conviction under 8 U.S.C. 1326 for illegally re-entering the United States after deportation. Our jurisdiction rests upon 28 U.S.C. s11291. Both entries into the United States were made upon fraudulent claims of citizenship. Appellant's defense at trial was based upon the fact that he is the child of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence. He now asserts that the deportation order was rendered invalid by 8 U.S.C. 1251(f), thereby negating an essential element of the crime. The trial court, 319 F.Supp. 558, rejected this contention and upheld the order of deportation on the basis of the decision of the Attorney General in Matter of Lee, Interim Decision No. 1960 (1969).
Subsequently, we considered the scope of 1251(f) and reversed the said Attorney General's decision in Lee Fook Chuey v. Immigration and Naturalization Service, 439 F.2d 244, (9th Cir. Sept. 29, 1970), pet. rh. denied (Feb. 11, 1971). In that case we held that an alien who has the requisite family ties and meets the qualitative requirements of the Immigration and Naturalization Act is entitled to the relief provided by 1251(f), even though he has obtained entry by misrepresentation. No petition for certiorari has been filed by the government.
Because this case is factually indistinguishable from Chuey, we must reverse the judgment of conviction. It is so ordered.
GRAY, District Judge (concurring):
I agree that this case is covered by the opinion of this Court in Lee Fook Chuey. Being bound by that decision, I concur in this one.
Hon. William P. Gray, United States District Judge, Central District of California, sitting by designation
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.