Study aid, not legal advice. caselaw is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice or engage in the unauthorized practice of law (UPL). All briefs, outlines, and citation tools on these pages are educational summaries for law students; they are not a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney admitted in your jurisdiction. Bar-admission rules vary by state. For court filings or client matters, verify every authority against the official reporter and your court's local rules. Use of caselaw does not create an attorney-client relationship.
Daniel Perez ECHEVERRIA, Petitioner, v. IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE, Respondent, 1975 — 519 F.2d 1373 · caselaw · US
Contracts · MBE-tested
Daniel Perez ECHEVERRIA, Petitioner, v. IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE, Respondent
519 F.2d 1373·United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit·1975
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
Daniel Perez ECHEVERRIA, Petitioner, v. IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE, Respondent.
No. 73-2186.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
June 24, 1975.
Robert B. Johnston, California Rural Legal Assistance, El Centro, Cal., for petitioner.
Harry D. Steward, U. S. Atty., San Diego, Cal., Henry Petersen, Asst. Atty. Gen., Crim. Div., Dept. of Justice, Washington, D.C., Bernard Hornbach, Atty., Immigration and Naturalization Service, San Francisco, Cal., Joseph Sureck, Regional Atty., Immigration and Naturalization Service, Terminal Island, San Pedro, Cal., for respondent.
Before DUNIWAY, HUFSTEDLER and TRASK, Circuit Judges.
[MAJORITY — PER CURIAM:]
OPINION
PER CURIAM:
On February 27, 1974, in the above case, No. 73-2186, we reversed the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals upon the authority of Lee Fook Chuey v. INS, 9 Cir., 1970, 439 F.2d 244.
The Supreme Court on March 31, 1975, in No. 73-1917, granted certiorari, vacated the judgment and remanded the case to us for further consideration in the light of Reid v. INS, 420 U.S. 619, 95 S.Ct. 1164, 43 L.Ed.2d 501 (1975).
In all material respects, this case is like the case of Guel-Perales v. INS, 9 Cir., 1975, 519 F.2d 1372, decided today. In response to the remand of the Supreme Court, and for the reasons stated in Guel-Perales, we conclude that the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals must be, and it is
Affirmed.