Court Opinion

ID: 9462180
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 22:33:49.766122+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:37:26.555250
License: Public Domain

BROWNING, Circuit Judge
(concurring):
I concur under the compulsion of the holding in Palatian v. Immigration & Naturalization Service, 502 F.2d 1091 (9th Cir. 1974), that an “entry” is conclusively established by proof of unlawful conduct by an alien while abroad, regardless of other indicia of the alien’s actual intention. In my opinion, however, Palatian fails to give reasonable scope to the holding of Rosenberg v. Fleuti, 374 U.S. 449, 462, 83 S.Ct. 1804, 1812, 10 L.Ed.2d 1000 (1962), that an “entry” occurs only when there is “an intent to depart in a manner which can be regarded as meaningfully interruptive of the alien’s permanent residence.” Palatian adopts a mechanical and restrictive interpretation of Rosenberg v. Fleuti, inconsistent with that applied in such cases as Vargas-Banuelos v. Immigration & Naturalization Service, 466 F.2d 1371 *885(5th Cir. 1972); Yanez-Jacquez v. Immigration & Naturalization Service, 440 F.2d 701 (5th Cir. 1971); Lozano-Giron v. Immigration & Naturalization Service, 506 F.2d 1073 (7th Cir. 1974). Controlling weight should not be given to only one of several factors the Supreme Court stated could support an inference of “intent to depart,” when the evidence as a whole strongly suggests a contrary intent, as it does in this case.