22 U.S.C. § 1281
Omitted
[omitted]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5
cases, 1952–1973 · leading case: Jose Tiania Tejeda v. United States Immigr. & Naturalization Serv., 346 F.2d 389 (9th Cir. 1965).
Jose Tiania Tejeda v. United States Immigr. & Naturalization Serv., 346 F.2d 389 (9th Cir. 1965). “§ 1281 , both the Special Inquiry Officer and the Board of Immigration Appeals dealt only superficially with the events of that unsuccessful attempt by petitioner to gain readmission to the United States. 22 U.S.C. § 1281 provides in part as follows: “(a) Any citizen of the…”
United States Immigr. & Naturalization Serv. v. Marciano Haw Hibi, 475 F.2d 7 (9th Cir. 1973). “for findings as to these asserted facts saying: “If the properly developed factual findings reveal that petitioner made a bona fide effort to re-enter in 1947 or 1948 and failed to obtain reentry due to the misadvice of the American Consul, the respondents should be precluded…”
Gregorio Arciaga Mesina v. George K. Rosenberg, Dist. Dir. of Immigr. & Naturalization, 278 F.2d 291 (9th Cir. 1960). “1353 , 22 U.S.C.A. § 1281 note. See also informal interpretation of Philippine Independence Act by the Attorney General of the United States, Opinions of the Attorney General, 1933, Vol.”
Barber v. Varleta, 199 F.2d 419 (9th Cir. 1952). “§ 1281 , in part provides as follows: “(a) Any citizen of the Philippines who actually resided in the United States for a continuous period of three years during the period of forty-two months ending November 30, 1941, if entering the United States during the period from July 4,…”
In re Domingsil-Mercado, 146 F. Supp. 909 (N.D. Cal. 1956). “141 , 148, 22 U.S.C.A. § 1281 . The writ of habeas corpus will issue.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.