Yongyouth Ruangswang and Vanapar Ruangswang v. Immigration and Naturalization Service

591 F.2d 39 Yongyouth RUANGSWANG and Vanapar Ruangswang, Petitioners, v. IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE, Respondent. No. 77-2375. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Nov. 2, 1978. Michael D. Ullman (argued), Beverly Hills, Cal., for petitioners. Karin H. Brettauer, Asst. U. S. Atty. (argued), Los Angeles, Cal., for respondent. Petition to Review a Decision of The U. S. Immigration & Naturalization Service. Before WALLACE and SNEED, Circuit Judges, and ENRIGHT, * District Judge. WALLACE, Circuit Judge: 1 Mrs. Ruangswang attempted to qualify as an "investor" pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 212.8 (b)(4) (1974). She and her husband petition for review of an order denying their application for adjustment of status. We reverse and remand. 2 * The facts, insofar as they affect this review, are not in dispute. Petitioners, Mr. and Mrs. Ruangswang, are both natives and citizens of Thailand. They were admitted to the United States on August 14, 1971, with authorization to remain until January 31, 1975, the husband as a nonimmigrant student and the wife as the spouse of a nonimmigrant student. 3 On June 3, 1974, petitioners submitted applications for adjustment of status…

Mrs. Ruangswang attempted to qualify as an “investor” pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 212.8 (b)(4) (1974). She and her husband petition for review of an order denying their application for adjustment of status. We reverse and remand.

I

The facts, insofar as they affect this review, are not in dispute. Petitioners, Mr. and Mrs. Ruangswang, are both natives and citizens of Thailand. They were admitted to the United States on August 14, 1971, with authorization to remain until January 31, 1975, the husband as a nonimmigrant student and the wife as the spouse of a nonimmigrant student.

On June 3, 1974, petitioners submitted applications for adjustment of status pursuant to section 245 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1255 (1970). 1 The District Director denied the applications on March 17, 1975. The Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) subsequently issued an order to show cause and notice of hearing to each petitioner. The orders charged that they had remained in the United States for a longer time than permitted, and that each was thus deportable pursuant to section 241(a)(2) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1251 (a)(2) (1970). Although at their…

I concur in Judge Wallace’s opinion.

Adjudication by an agency to establish a rule or policy inconsistent with its recently adopted regulation suggests administrative confusion and uncertainty. The costs of this inefficiency should not always be borne by the individual being governed. An in *47 stance in which society should bear these costs is where the individual had no reason to know that the word of the regulations is not the will of the agency. I think such a situation exists in this ease.