Case Name: Daniel PADILLA-PARTIDA, Petitioner, v. IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1972-06-16
Citations: 462 F.2d 619
Docket Number: No. 71-2831
Parties: Daniel PADILLA-PARTIDA, Petitioner, v. IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: Federal Reporter 2d Series
Volume: 462
Pages: 619–620

Head Matter:
Daniel PADILLA-PARTIDA, Petitioner, v. IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE, Respondent.
No. 71-2831.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
June 16, 1972.
Rehearing Denied July 10, 1972.
George Haverstick (argued), San Diego, Cal., for petitioner.
Joseph Surreek (argued), San Pedro, Cal., Stephen Suffin, San Francisco, Cal., Henry E. Peterson, Asst. Atty. Gen., Crim. Div., Washington, D. C., Harry D. Steward, U. S. Atty., Robert H. Filsinger, Asst. U. S. Atty., San Diego, Cal., George K. Rosenberg, Dist. Dir., I. N.S., Los Angeles, Cal., for respondent.'
Before BARNES and TRASK, Circuit Judges, and BYRNE, District Judge.
The Honorable Wm. M. Byrne, Sr., United States District Judge, Central District of California, sitting by designation.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Appellant asks us to reverse the well-established law of this Circuit, which has considered the plain and clear provisions of Sec. 212(a) (23) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1182(a) (23).
This Congressional enactment makes any alien excludable "who has been convicted of a violation of . any law or regulation relating to the illicit possession of or traffic in narcotic drugs or marijuana. . . ."
We decline to reverse our previous positions.
Garcia-Gonzales v. INS, 344 F.2d 804 (9th Cir. 1965) cert. den. 382 U.S. 840, 86 S.Ct. 88, 15 L.Ed.2d 81 (1965);
Kelly v. INS, 349 F.2d 473 (9th Cir. 1965);
Brownrigg v. INS, 356 F.2d 877 (9th Cir. 1966);
de la Cruz-Martinez v. INS, 404 F.2d 1198 (9th Cir. 1968).
In view of our position, we need not consider other matters raised on this appeal.
Other Circuits specifically agree with this Circuit. E. g., Gonzalez de Lara v. United States, 439 F.2d 1316 (5th Cir., 1971).
Affirmed.