Lai Haw Wong v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv., 474 F.2d 739 (9th Cir. 1973). · Go Syfert
Search
Lai Haw Wong v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv., 474 F.2d 739 (9th Cir. 1973). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
31 citation events (21 in the last 25 years) across 11 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: CASTILLO ANGULO
Treatment trajectory · 1972 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1972 1999 2026
Statutes interpreted (leading-cases list)
#1 8 U.S.C. § 1251(a)(1) cited 1× in this case · 1 total citations of statute #5 8 C.F.R. § 242.20 cited 1× in this case · 12 total citations of statute
Under fire — who is questioning this case
Citations from separate opinions of courts that could overrule this case. This is a warning signal, not a treatment change. The flag color above is unaffected.
Dissent Abraham Saldivar v. Jefferson Sessions (2017)
“In Lai Haw Wong v. INS, 474 F.2d 739 (9th Cir. 1973), we explained that “mistaken admission conferred no status, permanent resident or otherwise, on [the aliens in question].” Id., at 742 (emphasis added).”
Top citers, strongest first. 16 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) CASTILLO ANGULO
unknown court · 2018 · signal: cf. · confidence medium
Found., Inc., 272 U.S. 1 , 14–15 (1926); cf. Lai Haw Wong v. INS, 474 F.2d 739, 742 (9th Cir. 1973) (holding that a “mistaken admission conferred no status, permanent resident or otherwise,” on the aliens in question).
examined Cited as authority (rule) Abraham Saldivar v. Jefferson Sessions (3×)
9th Cir. · 2017 · confidence medium
In Lai Haw Wong v. INS, 474 F.2d 739 (9th Cir. 1973), we explained that “mistaken admission conferred no status, permanent resident or otherwise, on [the aliens in question].” Id., at 742 (emphasis added).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Nesari v. Taylor
E.D. Va. · 2011 · confidence medium
See, e.g., De La Rosa, 489 F.3d at 554-55 (explaining that even if an alien has been granted an adjustment of immigration status, if the alien is subsequently determined in an immigration proceeding to have originally been ineligible for that status, that alien has not been “lawfully admitted for permanent residence” because “the alien is deemed, ab initio, never to have obtained lawful permanent resident status”); Matter of Longstaff, 716 F.2d at 1441 (holding that because the plaintiff was excludable under the INA at the time he was granted an immigrant visa by mistake, he had not be…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Offiiong v. Holder
9th Cir. · 2010 · confidence medium
However, “mistaken admission confer[s] no status, permanent resident or otherwise.” Lai Haw Wong v. INS, 474 F.2d 739, 742 (9th Cir.1973); accord Kyong Ho Shin v. Holder, 607 F.3d 1213, 1217 (9th Cir.2010).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Marquez-Zermeno v. Gonzales
9th Cir. · 2007 · confidence medium
Lai Haw Wong v. Immigration and Naturalization Service, 474 F.2d 739, 742 (9th Cir.1973).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Hansl
S.D. Iowa · 2005 · confidence medium
If the consular officer issued Aguirre-Moreno’s visa by mistake, the visa, though issued properly procedurally, is still invalid. ”); Lai Haw Wong v. INS, 474 F.2d 739, 742 (9th Cir.1973) (mistaken admission cannot constitute lawful admission).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Raul Aguirre-Moreno v. Immigration and Naturalization Service
9th Cir. · 1996 · confidence medium
Lai Haw Wong v. INS, 474 F.2d 739, 742 (9th Cir.1973) (visa issued based on misconception that father was in this country); see also, Monet v. INS, 791 F.2d 752, 753 (9th Cir.1986) (visa invalid when immigrant concealed prior drug conviction to obtain visa). 9 If the consular officer issued Aguirre-Moreno's visa by mistake, the visa, though issued properly procedurally, is still invalid.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Neil Monet v. Immigration & Naturalization Service
9th Cir. · 1986 · confidence medium
In Lai Haw Wong v. I & NS, 474 F.2d 739, 741 (9th Cir.1973), we approved the BIA’s ruling that aliens’ admissions on visas to which they were not entitled conferred no lawful status on the aliens for purposes of obtaining relief from deportation.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Antonio Hernandez-Robledo v. Immigration and Naturalization Service
9th Cir. · 1985 · confidence medium
INS v. Errico, 385 U.S. 214, 220 , 87 S.Ct. 473, 477 , 17 L.Ed.2d 318 (1966); Dallo v. INS, 765 F.2d 581 , 587 n. 7 (6th Cir.1985); Lai Haw Wong v. INS, 474 F.2d 739, 742 (9th Cir.1973).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Orantes-Hernandez v. Smith
C.D. Cal. · 1982 · confidence medium
See, e.g., INS v. Stanisic, 395 U.S. 62 , 68 n.6, 89 S.Ct. 1519 , 1523 n.6, 23 L.Ed.2d 101 (1969); Cheng Fan Kwok v. INS, 392 U.S. 206, 212 , 88 S.Ct. 1970, 1974 , 20 L.Ed.2d 1037 (1968); Lai Haw Wong v. INS, 474 F.2d 739, 742 (9th Cir. 1973); 8 U.S.C. § 1329 .
discussed Cited "see" KYONG HO SHIN v. Holder (2×)
9th Cir. · 2010 · signal: accord · confidence high
Similarly, the BIA in Koloamatangi held that “the correct interpretation of the term ‘lawfully admitted for permanent residence’ is that an alien is deemed, ab initio, never to have obtained lawful permanent resident status once his original ineligibility therefor is determined in proceedings.” 23 I & N Dec. at 551 ; accord Lai Haw Wong v. INS, 474 F.2d 739, 742 (9th Cir.1973) (holding that a “mistaken admission conferred no status, permanent resident or otherwise”). 6 Under Monet and Koloamatangi , Lee was never “lawfully admitted” for permanent residence and thus the Shins’…
discussed Cited "see" Walker v. Holder
1st Cir. · 2009 · signal: see · confidence high
See Wong v. INS, 474 F.2d 739, 741 (9th Cir.1973) (affirming the BIA’s determination that aliens’ “admission on visas to which they were not entitled conferred no lawful status” upon them); De La Rosa v. DHS, 489 F.3d 551, 554 (2d Cir.2007) (“[An alien] subsequently determined in an immigration proceeding to have originally been ineligible for ... status [as an LPR] has not been lawfully admitted for permanent residence because the alien is deemed, ab initio, never to have obtained lawful permanent residence status.” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)).
cited Cited "see" Valerio v. United States Immigration & Naturalization Service
D. Haw. · 1999 · signal: see · confidence high
See Lai Haw Wong v. INS, 474 F.2d 739 (9th Cir.1973); Monet, 791 F.2d 752 .
cited Cited "see, e.g." Mohammed v. Garland
W.D.N.Y. · 2024 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence medium
See, e.g., Lai Haw Wong v. Immigration and Naturalization Servs., 474 F.2d 739, 742 (9th Cir. 1973); Shtykova v. Holder, 2012 WL 1004906 , at *4 (E.D.N.Y.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Arellano-Garcia v. John Ashcroft
8th Cir. · 2005 · signal: see also · confidence medium
See also Lai Haw Wong v. I.N.S., 474 F.2d 739, 742 (9th Cir. 1973) (holding that a "mistaken admission conferred no status, permanent resident or otherwise" and thus the aliens were not "lawfully admitted").
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Guadalupe Arellano-Garcia v. Alberto Gonzales, Attorney General of the United States, 1
8th Cir. · 2005 · signal: see also · confidence medium
See also Lai Haw Wong v. I.N.S., 474 F.2d 739, 742 (9th Cir.1973) (holding that a “mistaken admission conferred no status, permanent resident or otherwise” and thus the aliens were not “lawfully admitted”).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
LAI HAW WONG Et Al., Petitioner,
v.
IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE, Respondent
72-1469.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Feb 28, 1973.
474 F.2d 739
Michael W. Roberts (argued), Albert C. Lum, of Simmons & Ritchie, Los An-geles, Cal., for petitioner., Carolyn M. Reynolds, Asst. U. S. Atty. (argued), Frederick M. Brosio, Jr., Asst. U. S. Atty., William D. Keller, U. S. Atty., Los Angeles, Cal., Henry E. Peterson, Asst. Atty. Gen., Dept, of Justice, Washington, D. C., Stephen Suffin, Atty., I&NS, San Francisco, Cal., Joseph Surreck, Regional Counsel, I&NS, San Pedro, Cal., George K. Rosenberg, Dist. Director, I&NS, Los Angeles, Cal., for respondent.
Chambers, Choy, Enright.
Cited by 25 opinions  |  Published
CHOY, Circuit Judge:

Lai Haw Wong (Mrs. Wong) and her two minor sons, Foo and Fat, appeal a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (the Board) holding them de-portable under Section 241(a)(1) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S. C. § 1251(a)(1). Another son, Lip, appeals from the Board’s denial of a petition to admit him as the son of a lawfully admitted permanent resident, Mrs. Wong. We affirm.

Mrs. Wong, Foo and Fat were admitted into the United States in March, 1969 under a derivative fourth preference visa through Wong Kam Chow, their husband and father, to whom a fourth preference visa had been issued in 1968. Mr. Wong was never admitted into this country as he was convicted on a narcotics charge before he could leave Hong Kong. The third son, Lip, was paroled into the United States, also in March 1969 on a status dependent upon the status of Mrs. Wong.

A special inquiry officer heard the deportation proceedings which were instituted against Mrs. Wong alone in October, 1969. [1] He ruled that she was not deportable under 8 U.S.C. § 1251(f) [2] (hereinafter section 241(f)) because she was the parent of two children who had been admitted for permanent residence albeit under the mistaken belief that they were accompanying or joining their father here. He certified his decision to the Board because of the novelty of the issue involved.

While the certified question was pending before the Board, the Immigration and Naturalization Service (the INS) brought deportation proceedings against Foo and Fat, and moved to reopen Mrs. Wong’s deportation case and to consolidate the three deportation matters. The Board granted the reopening and the consolidation pointing out that the special inquiry officer’s decision as to Mrs. Wong having been certified was not a final action but only a suggested solution.

The special inquiry officer, on reopening, ruled that Mrs. Wong, Foo and Fat (appellants) held invalid preference immigrant visas since they did not accompany or join their husband and father and so were deportable. Appellants contend that they were entitled to section 241(f) relief since at one time, no matter how briefly, there was a person who was a lawful permanent resident alien with whom they had the necessary relationship; i. e., Mrs. Wong’s status was supported by the admission of Foo and Fat; and the status of Foo and Fat was supported by Mrs. Wong’s admission, plus the special inquiry officer’s October 1969 ruling that she was not de-portable.

The Board rejected appellants’ contentions ruling that their admission on visas to which they were not entitled conferred no lawful status upon appellants and that they could not rely on each other’s admission to gain section 241(f) status. We agree.

[*742] The fundamental purpose of Congress in enacting § 241(f) was a humanitarian desire to keep family units together by precluding deportation of aliens who had gained admission into the country by fraud or misrepresentation if the effect of such deportation would be to separate families composed in part of American citizens or lawful permanent residents. Immigration Service v. Errico, 385 U.S. 214, 87 S.Ct. 473, 17 L.Ed. 2d 318 (1966); Lee Fook Chuey v. Immigration & Naturalization Service, 439 F.2d 244, 247 (9th Cir. 1971).

Here, the family unit comprises a non-citizen father in Hong Kong who was never admitted into this country, a mother, and three sons. Under such circumstances, permitting Mrs. Wong and two sons to remain here and admitting the third son into the United States while Mr. Wong resides in another country, would promote familial disunity rather than union, contrary to the purpose of § 241(f). Chung Wook Myung v. Immigration & Naturalization Service, 468 F.2d 627 (9th Cir. 1972); United States v. Palmer, 458 F.2d 663 (9th Cir. 1972).

The basis for admission of Mrs. Wong and two sons was the misconception that Mr. Wong had already entered this country under his fourth preference visa.

Such mistaken admission conferred no status, permanent resident or otherwise, on Mrs. Wong, Foo, or Fat. None was lawfully admitted. It follows that the special inquiry officer’s tentative ruling that Mrs. Wong was not deportable since she was the parent of two children who had been admitted for permanent residence was erroneous.

Appellants contend that, since the special inquiry officer knew or should have known when he made his original ruling that the two children were ex-cludable at the time of entry, the reopening of Mrs. Wong’s case by the Board was a violation of due process— that the INS was estopped from introducing evidence as to the children since 8 C.F.R. § 242.22 prohibits reopening a deportation hearing for the taking of further evidence “unless the special inquiry officer is satisfied the evidence sought to be offered is material and was not available and could not have been discovered or presented at the hearing.”

No final decision was reached by the special inquiry officer. He certified the matter to the Board for a final decision because of the novel situation presented. “The order of the special inquiry officer shall be final except when the case is certified to the Board . . . or an appeal is taken to the Board by the respondent or the trial attorney.” 8 C.F.R. § 242.20. Thus, technically speaking, no reopening was involved of Mrs. Wong’s case, there having been no finality in the ruling of the special inquiry officer.

The remand to and further proceedings before the special inquiry officer, including the taking of further evidence as to the children, were proper.

As to the appeal of the son, Lip, who seeks this court’s review of the denial of his visa petition, we dismiss his appeal since it did not arise out of a deportation proceeding. While under 8 U.S. C. § 1105a(a) the court of appeals has exclusive jurisdiction to review final orders of deportation such as those affecting Mrs. Wong, Foo and Fat. Lip’s resort, however, should have been to the district court rather than to this court. Cheng Fan Kwok v. INS, 392 U.S. 206, 210, 88 S.Ct. 1970, 20 L.Ed.2d 1037 (1968); Andres v. INS, 460 F.2d 287, 288 (6th Cir. 1972).

Affirmed as to Mrs. Wong, Foo and Fat, dismissed for want of jurisdiction as to Lip.

1

. The policy of the Immigration and Naturalization Service was to permit children of tender years' to leave the United States on a voluntary basis with their parent or parents where all of them were deportable instead of subjecting such children to deportation proceedings with their parent or parents.

2

. “The provisions of this section relating to the deportation of aliens within the United States on the ground that they were excludable at the time of entry as aliens who have sought to procure, or have procured visas or other documentation, or entry into the United States by fraud or misrepresentation shall not apply to an alien otherwise admissible at the time of entry who is the spouse, parent, or a child of a United States citizen or of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence.”