Source: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/456/1092/48863/
Timestamp: 2020-05-27 10:41:49
Document Index: 30018616

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1101', '§ 1255', '§ 1256', '§ 1201', '§ 1101', '§ 1151', '§ 1154', '§ 1255', '§ 1151', '§ 1151', '§ 1153', '§ 1103', '§ 2201', '§ 701', '§ 3281', '§ 15']

Jiwan Singh, Plaintiff-appellee, v. Immigration and Naturalization Service and Cecil W.fullilove, District Director, Immigration Andnaturalization Service, San Franciscodistrict, Defendant-appellant, 456 F.2d 1092 (9th Cir. 1972) :: Justia
Justia › US Law › Case Law › Federal Courts › Courts of Appeals › Ninth Circuit › 1972 › Jiwan Singh, Plaintiff-appellee, v. Immigration and Naturalization Service and Cecil W.fullilove, Di...
Jiwan Singh, Plaintiff-appellee, v. Immigration and Naturalization Service and Cecil W.fullilove, District Director, Immigration Andnaturalization Service, San Franciscodistrict, Defendant-appellant, 456 F.2d 1092 (9th Cir. 1972)
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit - 456 F.2d 1092 (9th Cir. 1972) Feb. 24, 1972. Rehearing Denied April 13, 1972
This case presents a perplexing question of statutory construction. The sole issue before this Court is the proper interpretation of a statute of limitations provision in the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, as amended [hereinafter, "the Act"], 8 U.S.C. §§ 1101 et seq.
Jiwan Singh is a citizen of India who entered the United States as a nonimmigrant student only January 10, 1959.1 On July 24, 1963, he married a United States citizen, and thereafter he applied to the Immigration and Naturalization Service [hereinafter, "the Service"] for adjustment of his status to that of an alien admitted to the United States for permanent residence. The Service, acting pursuant to Sec. 245(a) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1255(a), granted the adjustment of status on October 18, 1963.2
Section 246(a) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1256(a), provides, in part,
On February 16, 1970, Singh brought suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California to review the decision of the Board.7 The District Court granted summary judgment in favor of Singh, reversing the Board's decision, on May 27, 1970, 313 F. Supp. 532. The Service promptly appealed to this Court. We find the Service's arguments more persuasive than Singh's and, accordingly, reverse the District Court's decision.
Section 221(a) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1201(a), authorizes the issuance of visas to aliens by United States consular officers. The section divides visas into two broad categories. Aliens who seek entry for certain specific reasons enumerated in Sec. 101(a) (15) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a) (15)-e. g., study, business, tourism-must obtain nonimmigrant visas, which authorize the alien to enter the country and remain for a specified period of time, the precise duration of which depends on the purpose of the alien's visit. Other aliens must apply for immigrant visas, which authorize entry and permanent residence. The Act severely restricts the availability of immigrant visas. Act, Sec. 201(a), 8 U.S.C. § 1151(a); see n. 2, infra
Ordinarily, an alien who wishes to reside permanently in the United States must appear before a consular officer, establish his eligibility for an immigrant visa, and after having obtained one, travel to the United States, See Act, Secs. 204, 221, 222, 8 U.S.C. §§ 1154, 1201, 1202. Section 245(a), however, establishes a procedure pursuant to which an alien who has already entered the country as a nonimmigrant can secure an adjustment of his status to that of a permanent resident without actually leaving the United States, appearing before a consular officer, and then reentering the country with an immigrant visa. The applicant for adjustment of status must establish that he would be eligible for an immigrant visa if he were not already in the United States and that such a visa would be available to him. Act, Sec. 245(a), 8 U.S.C. § 1255(a)
The availability of immigrant visas-and, hence, of adjustments of status-is restricted: Sec. 201(a) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1151(a), authorizes the issuance of only a limited number of immigrant visas during any one year. Spouses of United States citizens, however, fall within an exception to this general framework; Sec. 201(b), 8 U.S.C. § 1151(b), exempts them from the numerical limitations imposed by Sec. 201(a). A valid marriage to a United States citizen, therefore, ordinarily entitles an alien to immediate entry as an immigrant or to immediate adjustment of status.
It should be pointed out that at the time Singh's status was adjusted, the limited number of immigrant visas available under Sec. 201(a) were distributed on the basis of a national origin quota system. Congress abolished that quota system in 1965, Pub. L. 89-236, and substituted a system of preferences based on skills and on familial ties to United States citizens and permanent residents. See Act, Sec. 203(a), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(a). Under this new regime spouses of United States citizens are still exempt from Sec. 201(a)'s numerical limitations.
Section 103(a) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1103(a), authorizes the Attorney General to appoint employees of the Immigration and Naturalization Service and to delegate to them "any of the duties and powers imposed upon him" by the Act. The section also authorizes the Attorney General to promulgate such regulations "as he deems necessary for carrying out his authority" under the Act
Singh brought the suit under the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201, and the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 701 et seq
See, e. g., 18 U.S.C. § 3281 (prosecutions for capital offenses), Sec. 3282 (prosecutions for noncapital offenses); 15 U.S.C. § 15b (private antitrust suits)