Bernard Kahlenberg v. Immigration and Naturalization Service

Eleventh Circuit

Bernard Kahlenberg v. Immigration and Naturalization Service

796 F.2d 1327, 1986 U.S. App. LEXIS 28115

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

DecidedJuly 29, 1986

Docket84-5196

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 796 F.2d 1327 (Bernard Kahlenberg v. Immigration and Naturalization Service) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bernard Kahlenberg v. Immigration and Naturalization Service, 796 F.2d 1327, 1986 U.S. App. LEXIS 28115 (11th Cir. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

In our opinion Kahlenberg v. Ins., 763 F.2d 1346 (11th Cir.1985), we held that Mr. Kahlenberg was statutorily ineligible for adjustment of status as an investor since his application for adjustment of status was not approved on or before June 1, 1978, so as to qualify him as a non-preference immigrant thereby exempting him from the labor certification requirements of Section 212(a)(14) of the Immigration and Naturalization Act.

Our holding was influenced, to a large extent, by our reliance upon the Immigra *1328 tion Service’s interpretation of its own regulations. The Board of Immigration Appeals recently had the opportunity to address this issue in light of 8 C.F.R. § 245.1(C)(2)(iv) (1986). In Matter of Amornvootiskul, Case Nos. 5 A-22450984 and A-22450985, Board of, Immigration Appeals Interim Decision No. 3009 (April 1, 1986), the Board held that an alien will have qualified as a non-preference immigrant if the application for investor status was subsequently approved with a priority date on or before June 1, 1978.

Upon reconsideration of the matter, we hereby RECALL OUR MANDATE and remand this case to the Board of Immigration Appeals for review and reconsideration in light of Matter of Amornvootiskul, supra and 8 C.F.R. § 245.1(c)(2)(iv)(1986). Accordingly, a stay of deportation will issue until such time as the Board of Immigration Appeals has reviewed the same pursuant to this remand.

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

ORDER

In our opinion Kahlenberg v. Ins., 763 F.2d 1346 (11th Cir.1985), we held that Mr. Kahlenberg was statutorily ineligible for adjustment of status as an investor since his application for adjustment of status was not approved on or before June 1, 1978, so as to qualify him as a non-preference immigrant thereby exempting him from the labor certification requirements of Section 212(a)(14) of the Immigration and Naturalization Act.

Our holding was influenced, to a large extent, by our reliance upon the Immigra *1328 tion Service’s interpretation of its own regulations. The Board of Immigration Appeals recently had the opportunity to address this issue in light of 8 C.F.R. § 245.1(C)(2)(iv) (1986). In Matter of Amornvootiskul, Case Nos. 5 A-22450984 and A-22450985, Board of, Immigration Appeals Interim Decision No. 3009 (April 1, 1986), the Board held that an alien will have qualified as a non-preference immigrant if the application for investor status was subsequently approved with a priority date on or before June 1, 1978.

Upon reconsideration of the matter, we hereby RECALL OUR MANDATE and remand this case to the Board of Immigration Appeals for review and reconsideration in light of Matter of Amornvootiskul, supra and 8 C.F.R. § 245.1(c)(2)(iv)(1986). Accordingly, a stay of deportation will issue until such time as the Board of Immigration Appeals has reviewed the same pursuant to this remand.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

796 F.2d 1327, 1986 U.S. App. LEXIS 28115, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bernard-kahlenberg-v-immigration-and-naturalization-service-ca11-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack