In re Ulufonua

D. Hawaii

In re Ulufonua

264 F. Supp. 311, 1967 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7270

CourtDistrict Court, D. Hawaii

DecidedFebruary 3, 1967

DocketH. C. No. 385

StatusPublished

This text of 264 F. Supp. 311 (In re Ulufonua) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Hawaii primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In re Ulufonua, 264 F. Supp. 311, 1967 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7270 (D. Haw. 1967).

Pincite

Opinion

DECISION

TAVARES, District Judge.

This case for all practical purposes may be considered as controlled by the decision in the case decided this day entitled “In the Matter of the Application of Sione Halaapiapi Malimali, D.C., 264 F.Supp. 308, For a Writ of Habeas Corpus, H.C. No. 386.” The cases were heard together on July 7, 1966.

The Court adopts as findings of fact the stipulation of facts appearing in the record pp. 40-44 inclusive.

It will be noted that Petitioner Ulufon-ua, at the time of his arrival had a certificate of eligibility of Form I-20A of the Immigration and Naturalization Service issued by the Director of Cannon’s School of Business, Honolulu, Hawaii, certifying petitioner’s acceptance for a full course of study in that school, with his field of study shown as junior accounting, provided he appeared on or before September 30, 1963. This petitioner had not properly filled out the reverse of Form I-20A concerning his own certificate as to his intention and other information, and this Petitioner has never attended either Cannon’s School of Business or any school in Hawaii since his arrival. His explanation for not attending Cannon’s immediately after he arrived was that he arrived October 5, 1963, too late for that quarter, and had to wait for the next quarter to register. But the fact remains that he never thereafter attended any school.

In other respects this case has run parallel to the Malimali case above mentioned.

The testimony of the District Director was directed to both the Malimali case, D.C., 264 F.Supp. 308 (H.C. No. 386) and this case. Except as above noted, and as specific findings in the Malimali case may apply only to that case, the findings of fact, conclusions of law and decision of the Court therein are adopted herein.

For the foregoing reasons the Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus is dismissed.

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

DECISION

TAVARES, District Judge.

This case for all practical purposes may be considered as controlled by the decision in the case decided this day entitled “In the Matter of the Application of Sione Halaapiapi Malimali, D.C., 264 F.Supp. 308, For a Writ of Habeas Corpus, H.C. No. 386.” The cases were heard together on July 7, 1966.

The Court adopts as findings of fact the stipulation of facts appearing in the record pp. 40-44 inclusive.

It will be noted that Petitioner Ulufon-ua, at the time of his arrival had a certificate of eligibility of Form I-20A of the Immigration and Naturalization Service issued by the Director of Cannon’s School of Business, Honolulu, Hawaii, certifying petitioner’s acceptance for a full course of study in that school, with his field of study shown as junior accounting, provided he appeared on or before September 30, 1963. This petitioner had not properly filled out the reverse of Form I-20A concerning his own certificate as to his intention and other information, and this Petitioner has never attended either Cannon’s School of Business or any school in Hawaii since his arrival. His explanation for not attending Cannon’s immediately after he arrived was that he arrived October 5, 1963, too late for that quarter, and had to wait for the next quarter to register. But the fact remains that he never thereafter attended any school.

In other respects this case has run parallel to the Malimali case above mentioned.

The testimony of the District Director was directed to both the Malimali case, D.C., 264 F.Supp. 308 (H.C. No. 386) and this case. Except as above noted, and as specific findings in the Malimali case may apply only to that case, the findings of fact, conclusions of law and decision of the Court therein are adopted herein.

For the foregoing reasons the Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus is dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

264 F. Supp. 311, 1967 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7270, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-ulufonua-hid-1967.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack