Jose Tiania Tejeda v. United States Immigration and Naturalization Service

This is a petition to review a final order of deportation. Jurisdiction lies with this court under 8 U.S.C. § 1105a and 5 U.S.C. §§ 1031-1042 ; Foti v. Immigration and Naturalization Serv., 375 U.S. 217 , 84 S.Ct. 306 , 11 L.Ed.2d 286 (1963).

The events leading to this order of deportation have been developed in the proceedings conducted by the Special Inquiry Office and the Board of Immigration Appeals. Petitioner is a national of the Philippine Islands. On March 10, 1926, he arrived lawfully in the United States and undertook permanent residence. He continually resided thereafter in the United States until June 13, 1946, when he departed for the Philippines. Prior to his departure, petitioner had obtained a one-year reentry permit which by its terms was expressly valid until April 10, 1947.

Petitioner arrived in the Philippine Islands on August 4, 1946 at the port of Manila. His testimony indicates that he remained in Manila for about one month, and then proceeded to his home town of Makati. He stated at the deportation proceedings that his intention was “to see his folks, get married, and return to the United States.” He did in fact marry in October 1946, but found it…

346 F.2d 389 Jose Tiania TEJEDA, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE, Respondent. No. 18999. United States Court of Appeals Ninth Circuit. May 19, 1965. William C. Wunsch, Faulkner, Sheehan & Wiseman, Norman Stiller, San Francisco, Cal., for petitioner. Cecil F. Poole, U. S. Atty., Charles Elmer Collett, Asst. U. S. Atty., San Francisco, Cal., for respondent. Before POPE and BARNES, Circuit Judges, and THOMPSON, District Judge. BARNES, Circuit Judge: 1 This is a petition to review a final order of deportation. Jurisdiction lies with this court under 8 U.S.C. § 1105a and 5 U.S.C. §§ 1031-1042 ; Foti v. Immigration and Naturalization Serv., 375 U.S. 217 , 84 S.Ct. 306 , 11 L.Ed.2d 286 (1963). 2 The events leading to this order of deportation have been developed in the proceedings conducted by the Special Inquiry Office and the Board of Immigration Appeals. Petitioner is a national of the Philippine Islands. On March 10, 1926, he arrived lawfully in the United States and undertook permanent residence. He continually resided thereafter in the United States until June 13, 1946, when he departed for the Philippines. Prior to his…

(concurring separately) .

I am entirely in accord with the court’s disposition of this case and with the essential holdings of the opinion. I file this separate opinion for two reasons. I think that the matters to be considered by the administrative officials upon remand have not been defined as fully as they might be. I think also that some of the portions of the opinion are demonstrably obiter dictum.

I wish to make it clear that it is not necessary for me to discuss these dicta as it can be demonstrated that they have no bearing, one way or another, upon the outcome of this case. The court’s opinion itself so indicates.

First I make it plain what I consider to be the actual decision of the court,— a decision with which I heartily agree. It may be indicated by quotation of four short extracts from the opinion as follows: “There can be no doubt that at the time petitioner appeared before the American Consul, he was qualified for readmission to the United States under Section 1281. Petitioner thus did not have to rely upon his reentry permit, then expired, to exercise his right to readmission.” “In particular, we find the administrative record grossly inadequate in its account…