Prassert Paointhara v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv., 721 F.2d 651 (9th Cir. 1983). · Go Syfert
Search
Prassert Paointhara v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv., 721 F.2d 651 (9th Cir. 1983). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
9 citation events across 4 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Momoh v. I.N.S. (ca8, 1993-03-26)
Top citers, strongest first. 3 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited "see" Momoh v. I.N.S.
8th Cir. · 1993 · signal: see · confidence high
See Paointhara v. INS, 708 F.2d 472, 474 (9th Cir. 1983) (per curiam), amended, 721 F.2d 651 (9th Cir. 1983). 5 We review for abuse of discretion the denial of Momoh's motion to reopen his deportation proceedings.
cited Cited "see" Julio Cesar Berroteran-Melendez v. Immigration and Naturalization Service
9th Cir. · 1992 · signal: see · confidence high
See Paointhara v. INS, 708 F.2d 472, 473 (9th Cir.), modified and reh’g denied, 721 F.2d 651 (9th Cir.1983).
cited Cited "see" Victor Gameros-Hernandez v. Immigration & Naturalization Service
9th Cir. · 1989 · signal: see · confidence high
See Paointhara v. INS, 708 F.2d 472, 474 (9th Cir.), modified on other grounds, 721 F.2d 651 (1983).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Prassert PAOINTHARA, Petitioner,
v.
IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE, Respondent
82-7236.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Nov 16, 1983.
721 F.2d 651
1983 U.S. App. LEXIS 15241
Morris L. Davidson, Los Angeles, Cal., for petitioner., William B. Odencrantz, Gen. Atty., San Pedro, Cal., Joe D. Howerton, Los Angeles, Cal., Lawrence Lippe, Washington, D.C., for respondent.
Browning, Fletcher, Norris.
Cited by 5 opinions  |  Published

ORDER

The petition for rehearing is denied. The opinion is amended as follows:

Delete from opinion dated June 15, 1983, commencing at page 2823, first column, line 4 of slip op., 708 F.2d 472 at page 474, second column, line 11, the following:
“Only by implication from the silences in this colloquy can it be inferred, if indeed it can be inferred at all, that petitioner, through his counsel, admitted his alienage. While we are aware of the need for dispatch in bringing deportation proceedings to a close, we[*652] cannot accept inferences borne only by silence as substantial and probative evidence”
and insert in its stead:
“We hold that counsel’s statements were too ambiguous”