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
Rafael H. Lopez, Petitioner, v. United States Department of Justice, Immigration and Naturalization Service, Respondent
United States Court of Appeals Third Circuit. - 356 F.2d 986
Argued February 23, 1966 Decided March 16, 1966
Appeal from the Board of Immigration Appeals.
Francis T. Anderson, Philadelphia, Pa., for petitioner.
Joseph R. Ritchie, Jr., Asst. U. S. Atty., Philadelphia, Pa., for respondent.
Before HASTIE and SMITH, Circuit Judges, and KIRKPATRICK, District Judge.
PER CURIAM:
Upon its face this appeal is a petition to review an order of deportation filed more than two years after that order became final. Our jurisdiction is limited to review upon petitions "filed not later than six months from the date of the final deportation order * * *." 8 U.S. C. § 1105a(a) (1). Therefore, on its face the petition asks that we exceed our statutory authority.
However, the record also shows that more than six months after the filing of the final order of deportation the petitioner filed a motion to reconsider the deportation order. A hearing was granted upon that motion and the motion was denied less than six months before this petition for review was filed. Therefore, we also consider this petition as one for review of the denial of reconsideration.
It appears that nothing was presented or urged by the petitioner in support of his motion for reconsideration that was not known and available to him at the hearing which resulted in the order of deportation. All of the circumstances considered, we cannot say that the denial of reconsideration was an abuse of discretion.
The order denying the motion for reconsideration will be affirmed.