Renate Luise Marlowe v. United States Immigration and Naturalization Service

457 F.2d 1314
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
DecidedMay 12, 1972
Docket71-2589
StatusPublished
Cited by23 cases

This text of 457 F.2d 1314 (Renate Luise Marlowe v. 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
Renate Luise Marlowe v. United States Immigration and Naturalization Service, 457 F.2d 1314 (9th Cir. 1972).

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Petitioner, an alien immigrant, has been ordered deported because she was found after an administrative hearing to have engaged in prostitution within the meaning of 8 U.S.C. §§ 1251(a) (12) and 1182(a) (12). She seeks judicial review of the finding of deportability by the Board of Immigration Appeals. We affirm.

Petitioner objected to the receipt into evidence of certain hearsay documents without foundation testimony from live witnesses. The strict rules of evidence governing the admissibility of hearsay in judicial proceedings are not applicable to administrative hearings. Richardson v. Perales, 1971, 402 U.S. 389, 400, 402, 91 S.Ct. 1420, 28 L.Ed.2d 842; Navarrette-Navarrette v. Landon, 9 Cir., 1955, 223 F.2d 234, 237, cert. denied, 351 U.S. 911, 76 S.Ct. 700, 100 L.Ed. 1444. The documents which were admitted — an Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration form filled out by petitioner when she entered the United States and a Report of Investigation containing petitioner’s registration as a prostitute with the Ely, Nevada, Police Department — were probative and their use was not fundamentally unfair so as to deprive petitioner of due process.

The evidence presented at the deportation hearing was reasonable, substantial and probative, and supported a finding by the Board of Immigration Appeals that petitioner had engaged in prostitution and so was deportable.

Affirmed.

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

Related

Fensong Zhu v. Holder
331 F. App'x 500 (Ninth Circuit, 2009)
Kaur v. Holder
Ninth Circuit, 2009
BARCENAS
19 I. & N. Dec. 609 (Board of Immigration Appeals, 1988)
TORO
17 I. & N. Dec. 340 (Board of Immigration Appeals, 1980)
RAMIREZ-SANCHEZ
17 I. & N. Dec. 503 (Board of Immigration Appeals, 1980)
PONCO
15 I. & N. Dec. 120 (Board of Immigration Appeals, 1974)
LAM
14 I. & N. Dec. 168 (Board of Immigration Appeals, 1972)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
457 F.2d 1314, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/renate-luise-marlowe-v-united-states-immigration-and-naturalization-ca9-1972.