Norma C. Diric v. Immigration & Naturalization Service

400 F.2d 658 Norma C. DIRIC, Petitioner, v. IMMIGRATION & NATURALIZATION SERVICE, Respondent. No. 22100. United States Court of Appeals Ninth Circuit. Sept. 19, 1968, Rehearing Denied Oct. 30, 1968. M. L. Borawick (argued), of Parker & Borawick, Midway, Wash., for appellant. A. E. Stephan (argued), Asst. U.S. Atty., Eugene G. Cushing, U.S. Atty., J. P. Boyd, Director, INS, Seattle, Wash., Ramsey Clark, Atty. Gen. of the U.S. Washington, D.S., S. Suffin, Atty., INS, San Francisco, Cal., for appellee. Before CHAMBERS, HAMLIN and ELY, Circuit Judges. HAMLIN, Circuit Judge: 1 Norma C. Diric, petitioner herein, is a native and citizen of the Philippines. She is not a citizen or a national of the United States. She entered the United States on June 24, 1965, at Anchorage, Alaska, as a non-immigrant student under the provisions of 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15) and was authorized to remain in the United States until June 15, 1966. She remained beyond that date and deportation proceedings were commenced against her. An order to show cause why she should not be deported was issued on October 11, 1966. On October 20, 1966, a hearing before a special inquiry officer was held. Petitioner was…

Norma C. Diric, petitioner herein, is a native and citizen of the Philippines. She is not a citizen or a national of the United States. She entered the United States on June 24, 1965, at Anchorage, Alaska, as a non-immigrant student under the provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1101 (a) (15) and was authorized to remain in the United States until June 15, 1966. She remained beyond that date and deportation proceedings were commenced against her. An order to show cause why she should not be deported was issued on October 11, 1966. On October 20, 1966, a hearing before a special inquiry officer was held. Petitioner was present without counsel.

During this hearing it was clearly established that she had remained in the United States longer than authorized and that she was therefore deportable. During the course of the hearing the petitioner indicated that she did not want to leave the United States and that she would therefore like to make an application for a change of status to that of a permanent resident. The hearing was adjourned to give her an opportunity to file such an application.

When the hearing was resumed, on December 12,1966, petitioner filed an application for permanent…

(concurring):

While I agree with the result reached in the majority opinion, I am not satisfied with the majority’s gentle reprimand of the Government’s trial attorney. I believe that we should have condemned his conduct in stronger terms. It distresses me that an alien must depart our country with the justified impression that the Government of the United States; through an over-zealous advocate, has been unnecessarily unkind, if not abusive.