Case Resources
Search this Case
in Google Scholar
on the Web
Google Web Search
MSN Web Search
Yahoo! Web Search
in the News
Google News Search
Google News Archive Search
Yahoo! News Search
in the Blogs
BlawgSearch.com Search
Google Blog Search
Technorati Blog Search
in other Databases
Google Book Search
Justia Research Resources
Justia.com
Supreme Court Center
US Regulation Tracker
US District Court Opinions
Federal District Court Civil Case Filings
Legal Blog Search
Legal Podcast Search
USA Constitution Annotated
Online Research Resources
Cornell LII
Cornell Wex Dictionary & Encyclopedia
LLRX.com - Legal Research
Expert Witness Directory
Nolo Consumer & Business
US Court Forms
WashLaw Directory
World LII
Cases Provided By
Creative Commons
public.resource.org
Filippo Giova, Aka Philip Giova, and Aka Philip Caleo, Petitioner, v. George K. Rosenberg, District Director of Immigration and Naturalization Service at Los Angeles, California, Respondent
United States Court of Appeals Ninth Circuit. - 308 F.2d 347
June 15, 1962 Rehearing Denied October 23, 1962
David C. Marcus, Los Angeles, Cal., for appellant.
Francis C. Whelan, U. S. Atty., Donald A. Fareed, Asst. U. S. Atty., Chief of Civil Section, and Gordon Levy, Asst. U. S. Atty., Los Angeles, Cal., for appellee.
Before CHAMBERS, STEPHENS and BARNES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
This court's jurisdiction is here invoked under the provisions of Public Law 87-301 (75 Stat. 650), 8 U.S.C.A. § 1105a, effective September 26, 1961, which provides for "the judicial review of all final orders of deportation."
The sole deportation order presently outstanding with respect to this petitioner was made April 2, 1957. On September 15, 1957 the Board of Immigration Appeals dismissed petitioner's appeal from that order. The deportation order referred to above is still in full force and effect, and the record before us indicates it has never been revoked.
Petitioner did move to reopen the proceedings before the Board of Immigration Appeals. This request was denied November 3, 1961. Petitioner is now appealing directly to this court from the denial of his motion to reopen; not from the order of deportation.
We have no jurisdiction to hear this appeal. It is dismissed.
We are tempted to discuss the merits of this case. But we cannot reach the rationale behind Pino v. Nicolls, 1 Cir. 1954, 215 F.2d 237, at 243, reversed per curiam, Pino v. Landon, 1955, 349 U. S. 901, 75 S.Ct. 576, 99 L.Ed. 1239, or the effect of the Attorney General's holdings in the Matter of A____, 8 I. & N.Dec. 429; Matter of B____, 7 I. & N.Dec. 166; In the Matter of G____, 5 I. & N.Dec. 129, for this court cannot give advisory opinions.