Antoine Salem Shubash v. District Director of the U. S. Immigration and Naturalization Service

450 F.2d 345, 1971 U.S. App. LEXIS 7687
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
DecidedOctober 8, 1971
Docket26262
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 450 F.2d 345 (Antoine Salem Shubash v. District Director of the U. S. Immigration and Naturalization Service) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Antoine Salem Shubash v. District Director of the U. S. Immigration and Naturalization Service, 450 F.2d 345, 1971 U.S. App. LEXIS 7687 (9th Cir. 1971).

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

The District Director of the United States Immigration and Naturalization Service appeals from a judgment which overturned his denial of Shubash’s application for seventh preference classification under 8 U.S.C. § 1153(a) (7). We reverse.

The statute authorizes the issuance of a seventh preference visa “to aliens who satisfy an Immigration and Naturalization Service officer * * * (A) that (i) because of persecution or fear of persecution on account of race, religion, or political opinion they have fled * * * (II) from any country within the general area of the Middle East, and (ii) are unable or unwilling to return to such country or area on account of race, religion, or political opinion * * The statutory conditions (i) and (ii) are in the conjunctive; both must be met. The burden of proof is placed by the statute on Shubash. 8 U.S.C. § 1153(d). A court may overturn a denial of a visa under this section only for abuse of discretion. (Suh v. Rosenberg, 9 Cir., 1971, 437 F.2d 1098, 1102.) Here, we can find none. Shubash did not meet his burden as to either condition.

Shubash, an Arab Christian, a resident of Jerusalem, carrying a Jordanian passport, left Jerusalem in 1966, not because of persecution but for personal reasons, entering and re-entering this country as a non-immigrant visitor. Since then, Israel has occupied Jerusalem. However, Shubash has not proved that he would be persecuted or hampered in any way if he returned either to Jerusalem or to that portion of Jordan not occupied by Israel. The record supports the Regional Commissioner’s findings.

Reversed with directions to dismiss the action as to appellee.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

TAHERI
14 I. & N. Dec. 27 (Board of Immigration Appeals, 1972)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
450 F.2d 345, 1971 U.S. App. LEXIS 7687, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/antoine-salem-shubash-v-district-director-of-the-u-s-immigration-and-ca9-1971.