Fabian Segura-Viachi and Maria Asuncion Avila De Segura v. Immigration & Naturalization Service

Fifth Circuit

Fabian Segura-Viachi and Maria Asuncion Avila De Segura v. Immigration & Naturalization Service

538 F.2d 91, 1976 U.S. App. LEXIS 7341

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedAugust 30, 1976

Docket76-1597

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 538 F.2d 91 (Fabian Segura-Viachi and Maria Asuncion Avila De Segura v. Immigration & Naturalization Service) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Fabian Segura-Viachi and Maria Asuncion Avila De Segura v. Immigration & Naturalization Service, 538 F.2d 91, 1976 U.S. App. LEXIS 7341 (5th Cir. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

This is a petition for review of an order of deportation. The issue is whether the petitioner husband may take advantage of 8 U.S.C. § 1254, the suspension of deportation statute. We hold that he may not.

The government argues that § 1254 is not available because the husband has failed to meet the statute’s requirement of continuous physical presence in the United States for the seven years immediately preceding the application for § 1254 relief. The government contends that the husband’s presence was significantly interrupted some four years prior to the § 1254 application by the husband’s admitted voluntary departure under threat of deportation. See 8 U.S.C. § 1254(e). We agree. Barragan-Sanchez v. Rosenberg, 471 F.2d 758 (9th Cir. 1972).

Petitioners argue that the seven year period need not immediately precede the application for § 1254 relief. The plain language of the statute contradicts this. Finally, petitioners assert that § 1254(f) gives an independent basis for relief not requiring a seven year presence. The statute will not bear such a construction. See Gregor v. Immigration & Naturalization Service, 351 F.2d 290 (9th Cir. 1965).

The petition is denied.

AFFIRMED.

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

PER CURIAM:

This is a petition for review of an order of deportation. The issue is whether the petitioner husband may take advantage of 8 U.S.C. § 1254, the suspension of deportation statute. We hold that he may not.

The government argues that § 1254 is not available because the husband has failed to meet the statute’s requirement of continuous physical presence in the United States for the seven years immediately preceding the application for § 1254 relief. The government contends that the husband’s presence was significantly interrupted some four years prior to the § 1254 application by the husband’s admitted voluntary departure under threat of deportation. See 8 U.S.C. § 1254(e). We agree. Barragan-Sanchez v. Rosenberg, 471 F.2d 758 (9th Cir. 1972).

Petitioners argue that the seven year period need not immediately precede the application for § 1254 relief. The plain language of the statute contradicts this. Finally, petitioners assert that § 1254(f) gives an independent basis for relief not requiring a seven year presence. The statute will not bear such a construction. See Gregor v. Immigration & Naturalization Service, 351 F.2d 290 (9th Cir. 1965).

The petition is denied.

AFFIRMED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

538 F.2d 91, 1976 U.S. App. LEXIS 7341, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fabian-segura-viachi-and-maria-asuncion-avila-de-segura-v-immigration-ca5-1976.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack