Praphat Phatanakitjumroon v. Immigration and Naturalization Service

Good Law
577 F.2d 84·1978 U.S. App. LEXIS 10634
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJune 19, 197876-2939California1,922 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Goodwin, J.

Praphat Phatanakitjumroon seeks review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals which affirmed the immigration judge’s denial of his motions to stay his deportation and to reopen his deportation proceedings. Phatanakitjumroon contends that the denial of his motions was an abuse of discretion.

Phatanakitjumroon, a citizen of Thailand, entered the United States in February of 1973 under a nonimmigrant student visa. In 1975, his application for an extension of time to remain in the United States was denied because he had violated his nonim-migrant status by accepting unauthorized employment. A deportation hearing was held on December 8, 1975, and an immigration judge found Phatanakitjumroon de-portable under section 241(a)(9) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1251 (a)(9). The immigration judge granted him the privilege of voluntary departure with an alternate order of deportation if he failed to depart on or before March 27, 1976.

Phatanakitjumroon claims that he married an American citizen on January 30, 1976. According to Phatanakitjumroon, his new wife filed a petition to classify him as an immediate relative on February 23,1976, so that he could obtain…

Concurring Opinion

Wallace, J.

concurring specially:

I concur in the result reached in the majority’s opinion and agree with most of its analysis. But I do not concur in the statement that “[a]n immigration official may, but need not, deny a motion to reopen deportation proceedings if the official finds that the alien is ineligible for an adjustment of status.”

We need not decide that potentially difficult question until an immigration judge’s decision to grant an ineligible alien’s motion to reopen on adjustment of status grounds is resisted by the government on appeal. That was not the case in Espinosa v. Immigration and Naturalization Service, 404 F.2d 544 (9th Cir. 1968). Thus, Espinosa cannot provide persuasive authority for the dictum. I would reserve comment on this issue until it is properly before us.

Opinion

577 F.2d 84 Praphat PHATANAKITJUMROON, Appellant, v. IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE, Appellee. No. 76-2939. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. June 19, 1978. Rafael E. Vivero, Los Angeles, Cal., for appellant. J. Mark Waxman, Los Angeles, Cal., for appellee. On Petition to Review a Decision of the U. S. Immigration and Naturalization Service. Before GOODWIN, WALLACE and HUG, Circuit Judges. GOODWIN, Circuit Judge. 1 Praphat Phatanakitjumroon seeks review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals which affirmed the immigration judge's denial of his motions to stay his deportation and to reopen his deportation proceedings. Phatanakitjumroon contends that the denial of his motions was an abuse of discretion. 2 Phatanakitjumroon, a citizen of Thailand, entered the United States in February of 1973 under a nonimmigrant student visa. In 1975, his application for an extension of time to remain in the United States was denied because he had violated his nonimmigrant status by accepting unauthorized employment. A deportation hearing was held on December 8, 1975, and an immigration judge found Phatanakitjumroon deportable under section 241(a)(9) of the…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.