In the Matter of Pierre

17 Cited authorities

Leng May Ma v. Barber
357 U.S. 185 (1958) Cited 213 times
Holding that an alien's parole into the United States "did not alter her status as an excluded alien"
SIU FUNG LUK v. ROSENBERG
409 F.2d 555 (9th Cir. 1969) Cited 23 times
In Luk v. Rosenberg (9 Cir. 1969), 409 F.2d 555, we held that although it might be more convenient for the alien to process his new application for admission while in the United States, the District Director's denial of a stay was not an abuse of discretion.
Vitale v. Immigration Naturalization Service
463 F.2d 579 (7th Cir. 1972) Cited 9 times
Holding that, for the period between inspection at the airport to alien's exclusion hearing, "[t]he placing of Vitale in the custody of Alitalia Airlines constituted parole; [so] he did not effect an entry into the United States"
United States v. Vasilatos
209 F.2d 195 (3d Cir. 1954) Cited 27 times
Holding that a ship crewmember "entered" the country under § 1326 when his request for admission was decided, not when he merely crossed the border into the United States
Glavic v. Beechie
340 F.2d 91 (5th Cir. 1964) Cited 13 times
No. 21342. December 18, 1964. Sam Williamson, Houston, Elmo Schwab, Barker, Barker Coltzer, Galveston, Tex. for appellant. James R. Gough, Asst. U.S. Atty., Woodrow Seals, U.S. Atty., Morton L. Susman, Asst. U.S. Atty., Houston, Tex., for appellees. Before HUTCHESON, WISDOM and GEWIN, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: This is an appeal from an opinion and order denying relief under a petition for habeas corpus filed by appellant in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas. This
United States v. Murff
176 F. Supp. 253 (S.D.N.Y. 1959) Cited 18 times
Holding that alien paroled and released on bond pending exclusion proceedings was "still, in theory of law, ‘on the threshold of initial entry.’ " (quoting Shaughnessy v. United States ex rel. Mezei , 345 U.S. 206, 212, 73 S.Ct. 625, 97 L.Ed. 956 (1953) )
Conceiro v. Marks
360 F. Supp. 454 (S.D.N.Y. 1973) Cited 4 times
In Conceiro v. Marks, 360 F. Supp. 454 (S.D.N.Y. 1973) (Wyatt, J.), habeas corpus relief was denied because the court could find no abuse of discretion in the district director's denial of parole to an excludable political asylum applicant.
Glavic v. Beechie
225 F. Supp. 24 (S.D. Tex. 1963) Cited 8 times
Civ. A. No. 63-H-515. December 31, 1963. Barker, Barker Coltzer, Elmo Schwab, Jr., Galveston, Tex., and Sam Williamson, Houston, Tex., for plaintiff. Woodrow Seals, U.S. Atty. for Southern Dist. of Texas, Morton L. Susman, Houston, Tex., for defendants. NOEL, District Judge. This action is brought by an alien seaman in an attempt to obtain a hearing before a special inquiry officer of the Immigration and Naturalization Service on his request for parole into the United States. Plaintiff alleges that
Lazarescu v. United States
199 F.2d 898 (4th Cir. 1952) Cited 18 times
Finding that entry through inspection by an immigration officer did not make entry lawful
Klapholz v. Esperdy
302 F.2d 928 (2d Cir. 1962) Cited 5 times
No. 324, Docket 27399. Argued April 26, 1962. Decided May 18, 1962. Jackson G. Cook, New York City (Stuart Wadler, New York City, of counsel), for plaintiff-appellant. Roy Babitt, Sp. Asst. U.S. Atty., New York City (Robert M. Morgenthau, U.S. Atty., for the S.D. of New York, New York City, on the brief), for defendant-appellee. Before SMITH, KAUFMAN and MARSHALL, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM. This is an appeal from a summary judgment which dismissed a complaint seeking review of an exclusion order
Section 1182 - Inadmissible aliens
8 U.S.C. § 1182 Cited 9,905 times 69 Legal Analyses
Holding deportable aliens who have been convicted of "crimes involving moral turpitude"
Section 100.4 - Field offices
8 C.F.R. § 100.4 Cited 63 times
Establishing different ports of entry for different classes of noncitizens

In the Matter of Pierre

17 Cited authorities

Holding that an alien's parole into the United States "did not alter her status as an excluded alien"

In Luk v. Rosenberg (9 Cir. 1969), 409 F.2d 555, we held that although it might be more convenient for the alien to process his new application for admission while in the United States, the District Director's denial of a stay was not an abuse of discretion.

Holding that, for the period between inspection at the airport to alien's exclusion hearing, "[t]he placing of Vitale in the custody of Alitalia Airlines constituted parole; [so] he did not effect an entry into the United States"

Holding that a ship crewmember "entered" the country under § 1326 when his request for admission was decided, not when he merely crossed the border into the United States

Holding that alien paroled and released on bond pending exclusion proceedings was "still, in theory of law, ‘on the threshold of initial entry.’ " (quoting Shaughnessy v. United States ex rel. Mezei , 345 U.S. 206, 212, 73 S.Ct. 625, 97 L.Ed. 956 (1953) )

In Conceiro v. Marks, 360 F. Supp. 454 (S.D.N.Y. 1973) (Wyatt, J.), habeas corpus relief was denied because the court could find no abuse of discretion in the district director's denial of parole to an excludable political asylum applicant.

Finding that entry through inspection by an immigration officer did not make entry lawful

Holding deportable aliens who have been convicted of "crimes involving moral turpitude"

Establishing different ports of entry for different classes of noncitizens