Hilario Alvarez-Ruiz v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv., 749 F.2d 1314 (9th Cir. 1984). · Go Syfert
Search
Hilario Alvarez-Ruiz v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv., 749 F.2d 1314 (9th Cir. 1984). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
G Cite
cited 3× by 3 distinct cases, last quoted 1993 · …follow the ins regulations and file a motion to reopen with the bia. at p. 1316 ✓
40 citation events (2 in the last 25 years) across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Myers v. Holder (ca9, 2011-10-20)
Treatment trajectory · 1985 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1985 2005 2026
Statutes interpreted (leading-cases list)
#16 8 C.F.R. § 3.6 cited 1× in this case · 71 total citations of statute
Top citers, strongest first. 19 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Myers v. Holder (2×)
9th Cir. · 2011 · confidence medium
See Aguilar-Escobar v. INS, 136 F.3d 1240, 1241 (9th Cir.1998) (staying the mandate until the petitioner's application before the BIA is disposed of); Alvarez-Ruiz v. INS, 749 F.2d 1314, 1316 (9th Cir.1984) (staying the mandate sixty days to allow time for the petitioner to seek relief from the BIA and for such further time as is required for disposition of the application before the BIA); Khourassany v. INS, 208 F.3d 1096, 1101 (9th Cir.2000) (staying the mandate ninety days so that the petitioner can file a motion to reopen before the *1179 BIA); Roque-Carranza v. INS, 778 F.2d 1373, 1374 (9…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Kelly Vega-Zazueta v. Immigration and Naturalization Service
9th Cir. · 1997 · confidence medium
See Olivar v. INS, 967 F.2d 1381, 1383 (9th Cir.1992) (staying petition for review pending BIA's disposition of a motion to reopen); Alvarez-Ruiz v. INS, 749 F.2d 1314, 1316 (9th Cir.1984) (ruling on the merits, but staying the mandate for as long as is required for petitioner to submit a motion to reopen and an application for stay). 11 The stay shall remain in effect, and this petition for review is withdrawn from submission, until further order of the court.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Kedir Mohammed Temam v. Immigration and Naturalization Service
9th Cir. · 1996 · confidence medium
See Wall v. INS, 722 F.2d 1442, 1443 (9th Cir.1984) (staying resolution of the merits of the petition); Alvarez-Ruiz v. INS, 749 F.2d 1314, 1316 (9th Cir.1984) (ruling on the merits, but staying the mandate); cf. Berroteran-Melendez v. INS, 955 F.2d 1251, 1255 (9th Cir.1992) (declining "in the factual context of [the] case" to stay the petition); see also Lozada v. INS, 857 F.2d 10, 12 (1st Cir.1988) (hearing oral argument, but staying resolution of the merits). 7 This is one of those cases where common sense suggests that we should exercise our discretion to grant a stay.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Raul Aguirre-Moreno v. Immigration and Naturalization Service
9th Cir. · 1996 · confidence medium
See Rogue-Carranza, 778 F.2d at 1374 ; Alvarez-Ruiz v. INS, 749 F.2d 1314, 1316 (9th Cir.1984).
examined Cited as authority (rule) Hamadi Jamali Fatiha Jamali v. Immigration and Naturalization Service (3×) also: Cited "see"
9th Cir. · 1996 · confidence medium
Alvarez-Ruiz v. INS, 749 F.2d 1314, 1315-16 (9th Cir.1984).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Sasoun Avetisian v. Immigration and Naturalization Service
9th Cir. · 1996 · confidence medium
See Olivar v. INS, 967 F.2d 1381, 1383 (9th Cir.1992); Roque-Carranza v. INS, 778 F.2d 1373, 1374 (9th Cir.1985); Alvarez-Ruiz v. INS, 749 F.2d 1314, 1316 (9th Cir.1984).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Rafael Tadeo, Jr. Julieta Lambino Tadeo Roxanne Camille Tadeo Jennifer Ann Lambino Tadeo v. Immigration and Naturalization Service
9th Cir. · 1996 · confidence medium
See Sida v. I.N.S., 783 F.2d 947, 950-51 (9th Cir.1986); Alvarez-Ruiz v. I.N.S., 749 F.2d 1314, 1316 (9th Cir.1984).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Amrit Pal Singh v. Immigration & Naturalization Service (2×) also: Cited "see"
9th Cir. · 1996 · confidence medium
Jara-Navarrete v. I.N.S., 813 F.2d 1340 , 1344 n. 2 (9th Cir.1986); Sida v. I.N.S., 783 F.2d 947, 950 (9th Cir.1986); Alvarez-Ruiz v. I.N.S., 749 F.2d 1314, 1315-16 (9th Cir.1984) (court of appeals cannot direct the BIA to reopen petitioner's case and take into account time accrued on appeal; petitioner must file a motion to reopen with the BIA).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Yin Fen FLORES, Petitioner, v. IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE, Respondent
9th Cir. · 1995 · confidence medium
Id. at 1315.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Jaime Leonardo Mejia-Piedrahita v. Immigration and Naturalization Service (2×)
9th Cir. · 1995 · confidence medium
Alvarez-Ruiz v. INS, 749 F.2d 1314, 1315-16 (9th Cir.1984); Ramirez-Gonzalez v. INS, 695 F.2d 1208, 1213 (9th Cir.1983).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Francisco Fernandez-Jaramillo v. Immigration and Naturalization Service (2×) also: Cited "see"
9th Cir. · 1993 · confidence medium
Alvarez-Ruiz v. INS, 749 F.2d 1314, 1315-16 (9th Cir.1984).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Olga Paniagua-Mendieta v. U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service
9th Cir. · 1992 · confidence medium
See Hurn Bu Roe v. INS, 771 F.2d 1328, 1335 (9th Cir.1985); Roque-Carranza v. INS, 778 F.2d 1373, 1374 (9th Cir.1985); Alvarez-Ruiz v. INS, 749 F.2d 1314, 1316 (9th Cir.1984). 20 AFFIRMED. * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir.R. 36-3 1 A fair reading of the BIA's statement at AR 5 ("It is not within the province of this Board to speculate as to the psychological motivations of why the respondent became involved in the wrongdoing") is that the Board gave the psychologist's report little weigh…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Nirmal Singh Dhangu v. Immigration and Naturalization Service
9th Cir. · 1987 · confidence medium
Sida v. INS, 783 F.2d 947, 951 (9th Cir.1986); Roque-Carranza, 778 F.2d at 1374 ; Rodrigues-Agustin v. INS, 765 F.2d 782, 784 (9th Cir.1985) (per curiam); Alvarez-Ruiz v. INS, 749 F.2d 1314, 1316 (9th Cir.1984) (per curiam). 1 .
cited Cited as authority (rule) Jara-Navarrete v. Immigration & Naturalization Service
9th Cir. · 1986 · confidence medium
Sida, 783 F.2d at 950 (citing INS v. Phinpathya, 464 U.S. 183 , 188 n. 6, 104 S.Ct. 584 , 588 n. 6, 78 L.Ed.2d 401 (1984); Alvarez-Ruiz v. INS, 749 F.2d 1314, 1316 (9th Cir.1984)).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Reymundo Jara-Navarrete and Anna Simentol De Jara v. Immigration and Naturalization Service
9th Cir. · 1986 · confidence medium
Sida, 783 F.2d at 950 (citing INS v. Phinpathya, 464 U.S. 183 , 188 n. 6, 104 S.Ct. 584 , 588 n. 6, 78 L.Ed.2d 401 (1984); Alvarez-Ruiz v. INS, 749 F.2d 1314, 1316 (9th Cir.1984)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Sorachai Sida and Nongyoa P. Sida v. Immigration & Naturalization Service
9th Cir. · 1986 · confidence medium
The appropriate procedure would be for the Sidas to “ ‘follow the INS regulations and file a motion to reopen with the BIA.’ ” Alvarez-Ruiz v. INS, 749 F.2d 1314, 1316 (quoting Ramirez-Gonzalez v. INS, 695 F.2d 1208, 1214 (9th Cir.1983)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Sorachai Sida and Nongyoa P. Sida v. Immigration & Naturalization Service
9th Cir. · 1985 · confidence medium
The appropriate procedure would be for the Si-das to “ ‘follow the INS regulations and file a motion to reopen with the BIA.’ ” Alvarez-Ruiz v. INS, 749 F.2d 1314, 1316 (quoting Ramirez-Gonzalez v. INS, 695 F.2d 1208, 1214 (9th Cir.1983)).
cited Cited "see" Gerardo Antonio Roque-Carranza v. Immigration and Naturalization Service
9th Cir. · 1985 · signal: see · confidence high
See Alvarez-Ruiz v. INS, 749 F.2d 1314, 1316 (9th Cir.1984) (as amended) (per curiam).
cited Cited "see" Hurn Bu Roe v. Immigration & Naturalization Service
9th Cir. · 1985 · signal: see · confidence high
See Alvarez-Ruiz v. INS, 749 F.2d 1314, 1316 (9th Cir.1984) (per curiam).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Hilario ALVAREZ-RUIZ, Petitioner,
v.
IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE, Respondent
82-7762.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Dec 19, 1984.
749 F.2d 1314
1984 U.S. App. LEXIS 15793
Paul D. Edmondson, Yakima, Wash., for petitioner., Mark C. Walters, Dept, of Justice, Washington, D.C., for respondent.
Browning, Canby, Crocker, Per Curiam.
Cited by 22 opinions  |  Published
PER CURIAM:

The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denied Hilario Alvarez-Ruiz’s application for suspension of deportation, on the ground that he failed to satisfy the seven years continuous presence requirement. See 8 U.S.C. § 1254(a)(1) (1982).

Alvarez-Ruiz entered the United States from Mexico without inspection in March 1974. He went to Mexico in November 1975 to get married. He returned in May 1976, again without inspection, accompanied by his pregnant wife. He has worked in the forest industry and lived in Wapato, Washington for approximately ten years. He and his wife have six young children, all born in this country.

The INS instituted deportation proceedings in 1981. Alvarez-Ruiz admitted de-portability and applied for suspension of deportation. The Immigration Judge refused to suspend deportation, because Alvarez-Ruiz’s six-month absence broke the continuity of his seven years physical presence, and because deportation would not create extreme hardship to the alien and his citizen children. The BIA affirmed on the first ground, and did not reach the issue of extreme hardship. Alvarez-Ruiz petitioned for review.

8 U.S.C. § 1254(a)(1) provides that an alien who applies for suspension of deportation is eligible if he “has been physically present in the United States for a continuous period of not less than seven years immediately preceding the date of such application....” (Emphasis added).

INS v. Phinpathya, — U.S. —, —, 104 S.Ct. 584, 589-93, 78 L.Ed.2d 401 (1984), compels rejection of Alvarez-Ruiz’s argument that his six-month visit to Mexico did not break his continuous physical presence in the United States.

Alvarez-Ruiz also contends that, counting time accrued on appeal, he has now accumulated the necessary seven years continuous presence since returning from his visit to Mexico. He asks that we direct the BIA to reopen his case and evaluate his claim for suspension of deportation on its merits. Such an order would be inappropriate. We do not know whether Alvarez-Ruiz has been continuously physically present in the United States since his return in 1976; resolution of this factual[*1316] question is for the BIA in the first instance. Phinpathya, — U.S. at — n. 6, 104 S.Ct. at 588 n. 6. Accordingly, the appropriate procedure is to require the alien to “follow the INS regulations and file a motion to reopen with the BIA.” Ramirez-Gonzalez v. INS, 695 F.2d 1208, 1214 (9th Cir.1983). Cf. Wall v. INS, 722 F.2d 1442, 1444-45 (9th Cir.1984).

Under Phinpathya’s standard, we must affirm the Board’s order. To avoid unduly interfering with the Board’s discretion, and at the same time enable petitioner to seek relief from the Board, we stay our mandate for 60 days and, if a motion for reopening and application for stay are filed with the BIA or District Director within this period, for such further time as is required for disposition of the application for stay by the BIA or District Director. See 8 C.F.R. § 3.6(b) (1984); Valadez-Salas v. INS, 721 F.2d 251, 253 (8th Cir.1983).

AFFIRMED.