R.L. Investment Limited Partners, and Wanxuan Zou v. Immigration and Naturalization Service

273 F.3d 874, 2001 Daily Journal DAR 12197, 2001 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 9784, 2001 U.S. App. LEXIS 24853
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit·Decided November 20, 2001·No. 00-15627·Published·Cited by 14 cases

Opinion

RYMER, Circuit Judge:

We agree with and adopt the well reasoned opinion of the district court. R.L. Inv. Ltd. Partners v. INS, 86 F.Supp.2d 1014 (D.Haw.2000).

R.L. Investment Limited Partners argues for the first time on appeal that the INS’s new rules were impermissibly retroactive, that the Administrative Appeals Office’s (AAO) addition of new grounds for affirming the regional director’s denial of Wanxuan Zou’s petition violates the due process clause, and that the AAO is not an independent adjudicatory body entitled to render rules in an adjudicatory proceeding. However, we decline to consider these arguments because they were not *875 raised in the district court. See Bolker v. Comm’r of Internal Revenue, 760 F.2d 1039, 1042 (9th Cir.1985).

AFFIRMED.

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

R.L. Investment Limited Partners, and Wanxuan Zou v. Immigration and Naturalization Service, 273 F.3d 874, 2001 Daily Journal DAR 12197, 2001 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 9784, 2001 U.S. App. LEXIS 24853 (9th Cir. 2001).

273 F.3d 874 (R.L. Investment Limited Partners, and Wanxuan Zou v. Immigration and Naturalization Service) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Battineni v. Mayorkas
District of Columbia, 2024
Nguyen Nguyen v. Uscis
Ninth Circuit, 2023
Stanley v. Mason
D. Arizona, 2022
J.L. v. Cissna
374 F. Supp. 3d 855 (N.D. California, 2019)
Spencer Enterprises, Inc. v. United States
345 F.3d 683 (Ninth Circuit, 2003)
Wen-Wan Chang Tsung-Ming Chang Chiao-Ying Chang Yi Yuan Chiang Hsien-Ming Hsieh Shu-Chuan Hsieh Pei-Chen Hsieh Sung Duck Kong Hye Ra Kong Hyun Jung Kong Min Suk Kong Yei-Chien Lai Yu Kuei Lai Yen Chih Lai Chen Ju Lai Yoon Sik Lee Jong Hee Lee Eung Jun Lee Sang Eun Lee Eung Sang Lee Cheng-Hsiung She Hui Wen She Tzu Ming She Alabama Almark, Lp Alabama Bailey Lp Alabama Coosa Lp Alabama Dallas Lp Alabama Denim Lp Alabama Millry Lp Alabama Pro Sports Lp Alabama Rive Run Lp C & W Hotel Lp Delaware Milford Lp Georgia Almark Lp Louisiana Lasevilla Lp Mississippi Bass Lp Mississippi Magee Lp Mississippi McT Lp Mississippi Neely Lp, Maryland Limited Partnerships Mississippi Tees Lp, a Mississippi Limited Partnership National Steak Restaurants Lp North Carolina K-Barb Lp North Carolina Russell-Harvelle Hosiery Lp Pennsylvania Loungewear Lp Recap Fund I Lp Recap Fund v. Lp Rpc Fund I Lp South Carolina Manufacturing Lp Tennessee Lafayette Lp Wtc Fund I Lp United States Export Fund I Lp, Maryland Limited Partnerships v. United States of America, Wen-Wan Chang Tsung-Ming Chang Chiao-Ying Chang Yi Yuan Chiang Hsien-Ming Hsieh Shu-Chuan Hsieh Pei-Chen Hsieh Sung Duck Kong Hye Ra Kong Hyun Jung Kong Min Suk Kong Yei-Chien Lai Yu Kuei Lai Yen Chih Lai Chen Ju Lai Yoon Sik Lee Jong Hee Lee Eung Jun Lee Sang Eun Lee Eung Sang Lee Cheng-Hsiung She Hui Wen She Tzu Ming She Alabama Almark, Lp Alabama Bailey Lp Alabama Coosa Lp Alabama Dallas Lp Alabama Denim Lp Alabama Millry Lp Alabama Pro Sports Lp Alabama Rive Run Lp C & W Hotel Lp Delaware Milford Lp Georgia Almark Lp Louisiana Lasevilla Lp Mississippi Bass Lp Mississippi Magee Lp Mississippi McT Lp Mississippi Neely Lp, Maryland Limited Partnerships Mississippi Tees Lp, a Mississippi Limited Partnership National Steak Restaurants Lp North Carolina K-Barb Lp North Carolina Russell-Harvelle Hosiery Lp Pennsylvania Loungewear Lp Recap Fund I Lp Recap Fund v. L Rpc Fund I Lp South Carolina Manufacturing Lp Tennessee Lafayette Lp Wtc Fund I Lp United States Export Fund I Lp, Maryland Limited Partnerships v. United States
327 F.3d 911 (Ninth Circuit, 2003)
Wen-Wan Chang v. United States
327 F.3d 911 (Ninth Circuit, 2003)
Bartlett v. Duncan
262 F. Supp. 2d 1053 (C.D. California, 2003)
Golden Rainbow Freedom Fund v. Ashcroft
24 F. App'x 698 (Ninth Circuit, 2001)