JOSE LUIS DUNN-MARIN, PETITIONER,
v.
DISTRICT DIRECTOR OF THE UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE, RESPONDENT
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court granted the respondent's motion for summary affirmance, upholding the deportation order.
Petitioner, a lawful permanent resident, was ordered deported under section 241(a)(11) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. He argued he was not de…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Right To Counsel In Deportation Proceedings cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
In this proceeding to review an order of deportation, respondent has moved for summary affirmance on the ground that the questions presented are without merit in view of the repeated decisions of this court. Petitioner, a citizen of Mexico who had been admitted for permanent residence, was ordered deported on the ground that he was subject to deportation under section 241(a) (11) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, 8 U.S.C. § 1251(a) (11).
One of the points raised on appeal is that petitioner was not provided with the assistance of counsel at Government expense. This contention has been consistently rejected by the Supreme Court and Courts of Appeals. See Murgia-Melendrez v. United States Immigration and Naturalization Service, 407 F. 2d 207, 209 (9th Cir. 1969), and cases there cited.
The petitioner’s remaining argument on appeal is that he is not deport-able under section 241(a) (11) because he has not been finally convicted under California Health and Safety Code § 11530 by virtue of his commitment as a narcotic drug addict under California Welfare and Institutions Code § 3051. This argument, however, is foreclosed by a long line of decisions by this court, including de la Cruz-Martinez v. Immigration and Naturalization Service, 404 F. 2d 1198 (9th Cir. 1969); Kelly v. Immigration and Naturalization Service, 349 F. 2d 473 (9th Cir. 1965); and Garcia-Gonzales v. Immigration and Naturalization Service, 344 F. 2d 804, 808 (9th Cir. 1965).
We accordingly grant respondent’s motion and summarily affirm the order of deportation.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
United States v. Gasca-Kraft, 522 F.2d 149 (9th Cir. 1975)
-
Marcelino Martin-Mendoza v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv., 499 F.2d 918 (9th Cir. 1974)
-
de Lara v. United States, 439 F.2d 1316 (5th Cir. 1971)
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Garcia-Gonzales v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv., 344 F.2d 804 (9th Cir. 1965)
- Kelly v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv., 349 F.2d 473 (9th Cir. 1965)
- Maximilliano de la Cruz-Martinez v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv., 404 F.2d 1198 (9th Cir. 1968)
- Faustino Rafael Murgia-Melendrez v. United States Immigr. & Naturalization Serv., 407 F.2d 207 (9th Cir. 1969)