Arturo Garay-Burgos v. Immigration and Naturalization Service

Ninth Circuit

Arturo Garay-Burgos v. Immigration and Naturalization Service

62 F.3d 1424, 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 29327

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit·Decided July 27, 1995·No. 93-71016·Unpublished

Opinion

62 F.3d 1424

NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel.
Arturo GARAY-BURGOS, Petitioner,
v.
IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE, Respondent.

No. 93-71016.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted July 10, 1995.*
Decided July 27, 1995.

Before: HALL, WIGGINS and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.

ORDER

Petitioner Garay-Burgos's petition for review is DISMISSED. See Samaniego-Meraz v. I.N.S., No. 93-70692 (9th Cir. Apr. 20, 1995). The motion submitted by his counsel, Jose A. Bracamonte, to withdraw as attorney of record is DENIED as moot.

*

This panel unanimously agrees that this case is appropriate for submission without oral argument. Fed.R.App.P. 34(a); 9th Cir.R. 34-4

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

62 F.3d 1424

NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel.
Arturo GARAY-BURGOS, Petitioner,
v.
IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE, Respondent.

No. 93-71016.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted July 10, 1995.*
Decided July 27, 1995.

Before: HALL, WIGGINS and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.

ORDER

Petitioner Garay-Burgos's petition for review is DISMISSED. See Samaniego-Meraz v. I.N.S., No. 93-70692 (9th Cir. Apr. 20, 1995). The motion submitted by his counsel, Jose A. Bracamonte, to withdraw as attorney of record is DENIED as moot.

*

This panel unanimously agrees that this case is appropriate for submission without oral argument. Fed.R.App.P. 34(a); 9th Cir.R. 34-4

Arturo Garay-Burgos v. Immigration and Naturalization Service, 62 F.3d 1424, 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 29327 (9th Cir. 1995).

Pincite

62 F.3d 1424 (Arturo Garay-Burgos v. Immigration and Naturalization Service) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.