Mary Bowes v. District Director of the United States Immigration and Naturalization Service

Ninth Circuit

Mary Bowes v. District Director of the United States Immigration and Naturalization Service

443 F.2d 30, 1971 U.S. App. LEXIS 11232

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedMarch 22, 1971

Docket26275

StatusPublished

Cited by15 cases

This text of 443 F.2d 30 (Mary Bowes v. District Director of the United States Immigration and Naturalization Service) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Mary Bowes v. District Director of the United States Immigration and Naturalization Service, 443 F.2d 30, 1971 U.S. App. LEXIS 11232 (9th Cir. 1971).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

The final order for deportation is affirmed.

Mary Bowes is a teacher and an alien. She overstayed the length of her non-immigrant permission. She does not want to go home.

At issue here is Immigration’s refusal to delay proceedings because she had a petition pending at the Department of Labor for a sixth preference for admission as an immigrant. This, she says, deprived her of due process. The pendency of an application for immigration status, however, does not entitle an alien to a delay in deportation proceedings. See Manantan v. Immigration & Naturalization Service, 7 Cir., 425 F.2d 693, and Amarante v. Rosenberg, 9 Cir., 326 F.2d 58.

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

PER CURIAM:

The final order for deportation is affirmed.

Mary Bowes is a teacher and an alien. She overstayed the length of her non-immigrant permission. She does not want to go home.

At issue here is Immigration’s refusal to delay proceedings because she had a petition pending at the Department of Labor for a sixth preference for admission as an immigrant. This, she says, deprived her of due process. The pendency of an application for immigration status, however, does not entitle an alien to a delay in deportation proceedings. See Manantan v. Immigration & Naturalization Service, 7 Cir., 425 F.2d 693, and Amarante v. Rosenberg, 9 Cir., 326 F.2d 58.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

443 F.2d 30, 1971 U.S. App. LEXIS 11232, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mary-bowes-v-district-director-of-the-united-states-immigration-and-ca9-1971.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack