Fabian Segura-Viachi & Maria Asuncion Avila De Segura v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv., 538 F.2d 91 (5th Cir. 1976). · Go Syfert
Search
Fabian Segura-Viachi & Maria Asuncion Avila De Segura v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv., 538 F.2d 91 (5th Cir. 1976). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
8 citation events (3 in the last 25 years) across 5 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Ramos-Torres v. Holder (ca5, 2011-04-21)
Top citers, strongest first. 4 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Ramos-Torres v. Holder
5th Cir. · 2011 · confidence medium
The statute providing for voluntary departures prior to 1996 provided, in relevant part, that the “Attorney General may, in his discretion, permit any alien under deportation proceedings . . . to depart voluntarily from the United States at his own expense in lieu of deportation.” 8 U.S.C. § 1254 (e)(1) (1994). 30 8 U.S.C. § 1255a(g)(2)(C). 31 According to the law at the time of Ramos-Torres’s voluntary departure, we determined that such a departure under threat of deportation “significantly interrupt[ed]” an alien’s presence in the United States and thus that such departure was …
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Ramos-Torres v. Holder
5th Cir. · 2011 · confidence medium
According to the law at the time of Ramos-Torres’s voluntary departure, we determined that such a departure under threat of deportation "significantly interrupted]" an alien's presence in the United States and thus that such departure was "a significant departure from the United States.” Vargas-Gonzalez v. I.N.S., 647 F.2d 457, 458 (5th Cir.1981); Segura-Viachi v. I.N.S., 538 F.2d 91, 92 (5th Cir.1976). 32 . 8U.S.C. § 1255a(g)(2)(B).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Immigration & Naturalization Service v. Rios-Pineda
SCOTUS · 1985 · confidence medium
See Heitland v. INS, 551 F. 2d 495 , 503-504 (CA2), cert. denied, 434 U. S. 819 (1977); Segura-Viachi v. INS, 538 F. 2d 91, 92 (CA5 1976); Barragan-Sanchez v. Rosenberg, 471 F. 2d 758, 760 (CA9 1972); see generally Phinpathya, supra, at 193-194 .
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Toledo v. Kiley
E.D.N.Y · 1977 · confidence medium
Had petitioner departed as promised and returned, the period would have been computed from the date of re-entry, Segura-Viachi v. Immigration and Naturalization Service, 538 F.2d 91, 92 (5th Cir. 1976).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Fabian SEGURA-VIACHI and Maria Asuncion Avila De Segura, Petitioners,
v.
IMMIGRATION & NATURALIZATION SERVICE, Respondent
76-1597.
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
Aug 30, 1976.
538 F.2d 91
Albert Armendariz, Sr., El Paso, Tex., for petitioners., Edward H. Levi, Atty. Gen., U. S. Dept, of Justice, Washington, D. C., John E. Clark, U. S. Atty., San Antonio, Tex., Rex L. Young, Atty., Philip Wilens, Acting Chief, James P. Morris, Atty., Dept, of Justice Gov. Reg. & Labor Sect., Crim. Div., Washington, D. C., for respondent., B. J. Rumaker, Dist. Dir., Immig. & Nat. Ser., El Paso, Tex., Troy A. Adams, Jr., Dist. Dir., Immig. & Nat. Ser., New Orleans, La., for other interested parties.
Brown, Gewin, Morgan, Per Curiam.
Cited by 8 opinions  |  Published
PER CURIAM:

This is a petition for review of an order of deportation. The issue is whether the petitioner husband may take advantage of 8 U.S.C. § 1254, the suspension of deportation statute. We hold that he may not.

The government argues that § 1254 is not available because the husband has failed to meet the statute’s requirement of continuous physical presence in the United States for the seven years immediately preceding the application for § 1254 relief. The government contends that the husband’s presence was significantly interrupted some four years prior to the § 1254 application by the husband’s admitted voluntary departure under threat of deportation. See 8 U.S.C. § 1254(e). We agree. Barragan-Sanchez v. Rosenberg, 471 F.2d 758 (9th Cir. 1972).

Petitioners argue that the seven year period need not immediately precede the application for § 1254 relief. The plain language of the statute contradicts this. Finally, petitioners assert that § 1254(f) gives an independent basis for relief not requiring a seven year presence. The statute will not bear such a construction. See Gregor v. Immigration & Naturalization Service, 351 F.2d 290 (9th Cir. 1965).

The petition is denied.

AFFIRMED.