Ronald J. Arrias, Petitioner, v. the Immigration and Naturalization Service, Respondent, 386 F.2d 191 (9th Cir. 1967)
Annotate this CaseLloyd A. Tasoff (argued), Los Angeles, Cal., for petitioner.
Cecil F. Poole, U. S. Atty., Charles Elmer Collett (argued), Asst. U. S. Atty., Steve Suffin, Atty., INS, San Francisco, Cal., Joseph Sureck, Regional Counsel, INS, San Pedro, Cal., Ramsey Clark, Atty. Gen. of U. S., Washington, D. C., for respondent.
Before HAMLEY, BROWNING and DUNIWAY, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
The Immigration and Naturalization Service is hereby substituted as party respondent in place of the State of California and the United States of America (see Immigration and Nationality Act § 106(a) (3), 8 U.S.C. § 1105a(a) (3)). The petition must be dismissed because the petitioner has failed to exhaust his administrative remedies as required by section 106(c). Rodriguez-De Leon v. I.N.S., 9 Cir., 1963, 324 F.2d 311; Murillo-Aguilera v. I.N.S., 9 Cir., 1963, 313 F.2d 141; Mai Kai Fong v. I.N.S., 9 Cir., 1962, 305 F.2d 239; Siaba-Fernandez v. Rosenberg, 9 Cir., 1962, 302 F.2d 139.
Dismissed.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
