From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Abinoja v. Immigration Naturalization Serv

United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit
Apr 9, 1968
402 F.2d 788 (7th Cir. 1968)

Opinion

Nos. 16326-16333, 16476-16479.

April 9, 1968.

Lawrence A. Jacobson, Chicago, Ill., for petitioners.

Edward V. Hanrahan, now Thomas A. Foran, U.S., Atty., Chicago, Ill., for respondent.

Before HASTINGS, Chief Judge, and KILEY and SWYGERT, Circuit Judges.


ORDER


These several petitioners appeal from orders of the Immigration and Naturalization Service denying them adjustment of status under 8 U.S.C. § 1255. They are represented by the same attorney and the several appeals present a common question: whether citizens of the Philippines, admitted as non-immigrants for further training in medical professions, are entitled, because the Philippine government has released them from any obligation to return to that country, to a change of status to permanent residents without returning to the Philippines "for an aggregate of at least two years" as required by 8 U.S.C. § 1182(e).

Under the Immigration and Naturalization Act and Mutual Educational and Cultural Exchange Act, respectively, 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a) (15) (J) and 22 U.S.C. § 2451.

Petitioners agree that the basic issue has been decided against them by this court in Carriaga v. Immigration and Naturalization Service, 368 F.2d 337 (7th Cir. 1966), but they ask us to "take another look" at the issue, in the light of the legislative history of the Exchange Act.

We are not persuaded that we should not follow Carriaga. In Tuazon v. Immigration and Naturalization Service, 389 F.2d 363 (7th Cir., January 30, 1968), this court applied Carriaga to reject the precise contention made here based on the Philippine government release and upon legislative history. The court there reasoned that the language of the requirement in Sec. 1182(e) was so clear that it "[was] not susceptible of interpretation by resort to legislative history or otherwise."

We hold, on authority of Carriaga and Tuazon, that the Special Inquiry Officer and Board of Appeals did not err in denying petitioners' applications for adjustment of status on the ground that they had not complied with 8 U.S.C. § 1182(e).

The petitions are denied.


Summaries of

Abinoja v. Immigration Naturalization Serv

United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit
Apr 9, 1968
402 F.2d 788 (7th Cir. 1968)
Case details for

Abinoja v. Immigration Naturalization Serv

Case Details

Full title:Remedios B. ABINOJA, Juliana B. Bautista, Carina Derla Drilon, Eduardo…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit

Date published: Apr 9, 1968

Citations

402 F.2d 788 (7th Cir. 1968)