Profetiza Pelayo Lacanilao v. Immigration and Naturalization Service

Ninth Circuit

Profetiza Pelayo Lacanilao v. Immigration and Naturalization Service

470 F.2d 1172

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedNovember 22, 1972

Docket72-2258

StatusPublished

This text of 470 F.2d 1172 (Profetiza Pelayo Lacanilao v. 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

Profetiza Pelayo Lacanilao v. Immigration and Naturalization Service, 470 F.2d 1172 (9th Cir. 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Profetiza Pelayo Lacanilao appeals a district court judgment denying relief upon review of an order of deportation. The only issue is whether the decision and order of the District Director of the Immigration and Naturalization Service constituted an abuse of discretion.

On January 19, 1968, appellant entered the United States as a nonimmigrant visitor, authorized to stay for two months. Ten days later she applied for a social security number, and accepted employment in a Los Angeles hospital. She has been resisting deportation since December 11, 1968.

We do not reach the many compassionate arguments that might be made on behalf of gifted, industrious, and ambitious persons seeking admission to the United States. On the only question before us, we cannot say that the administrative decision was an abuse of discretion. The district court correctly limited the scope of its review, and its judgment must be affirmed.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM:

Profetiza Pelayo Lacanilao appeals a district court judgment denying relief upon review of an order of deportation. The only issue is whether the decision and order of the District Director of the Immigration and Naturalization Service constituted an abuse of discretion.

On January 19, 1968, appellant entered the United States as a nonimmigrant visitor, authorized to stay for two months. Ten days later she applied for a social security number, and accepted employment in a Los Angeles hospital. She has been resisting deportation since December 11, 1968.

We do not reach the many compassionate arguments that might be made on behalf of gifted, industrious, and ambitious persons seeking admission to the United States. On the only question before us, we cannot say that the administrative decision was an abuse of discretion. The district court correctly limited the scope of its review, and its judgment must be affirmed.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

470 F.2d 1172, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/profetiza-pelayo-lacanilao-v-immigration-and-naturalization-service-ca9-1972.