Candida Scalzo v. L. W. Hurney, as District Director of the Immigration and Naturalization Service, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

Third Circuit

Candida Scalzo v. L. W. Hurney, as District Director of the Immigration and Naturalization Service, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

314 F.2d 675, 1963 U.S. App. LEXIS 5996

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit

DecidedMarch 1, 1963

Docket14034

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 314 F.2d 675 (Candida Scalzo v. L. W. Hurney, as District Director of the Immigration and Naturalization Service, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Candida Scalzo v. L. W. Hurney, as District Director of the Immigration and Naturalization Service, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 314 F.2d 675, 1963 U.S. App. LEXIS 5996 (3d Cir. 1963).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Petitioner was ordered deported by the Board of Immigration Appeals. She then filed suit to review that order in the district court, the complaint averring that the Board wrongfully refused to adjust her status to that of a permanent resident under § 245 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C.A. § 1255. The case was ordered transferred to this court pursuant to the recent amendment providing, with certain exceptions not here relevant, for exclusive review of all final orders of deportation in the circuit courts of appeals. 8 U.S.C.A. § 1105a.

An analysis of the petition makes it abundantly clear that petitioner challenges the order of deportation only insofar as she seeks review of the Board’s refusal to adjust her status. In the light of our recent opinion in Lam Man Chi et al. v. Bouchard, 314 F.2d 664 (C.A.3, 1963), that determination is collateral to the order of deportation and is not initially reviewable here. Hence, we are without jurisdiction and the case will be remanded to the district court.

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

PER CURIAM.

Petitioner was ordered deported by the Board of Immigration Appeals. She then filed suit to review that order in the district court, the complaint averring that the Board wrongfully refused to adjust her status to that of a permanent resident under § 245 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C.A. § 1255. The case was ordered transferred to this court pursuant to the recent amendment providing, with certain exceptions not here relevant, for exclusive review of all final orders of deportation in the circuit courts of appeals. 8 U.S.C.A. § 1105a.

An analysis of the petition makes it abundantly clear that petitioner challenges the order of deportation only insofar as she seeks review of the Board’s refusal to adjust her status. In the light of our recent opinion in Lam Man Chi et al. v. Bouchard, 314 F.2d 664 (C.A.3, 1963), that determination is collateral to the order of deportation and is not initially reviewable here. Hence, we are without jurisdiction and the case will be remanded to the district court.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

314 F.2d 675, 1963 U.S. App. LEXIS 5996, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/candida-scalzo-v-l-w-hurney-as-district-director-of-the-immigration-and-ca3-1963.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack