Maturo v. Immigration and Naturalization Service, 404 F.2d 337 (2d Cir. 1968)
Annotate this CaseDecided December 11, 1968
John A. Arcudi, Bridgeport, Conn., for petitioner.
Daniel Riesel, Sp. Asst. U. S. Atty., New York City (Robert M. Morgenthau, U. S. Atty., for the Southern District of New York, New York City, on the brief), for respondent.
Before MEDINA and WATERMAN, Circuit Judges, and LEVET, District Judge.*
PER CURIAM:
Petitioner was found deportable at a hearing conducted on July 8, 1965. He has remained in this country, however, by resorting to various procedural expedients. He now seeks to reopen his deportation hearing in order to obtain status as a permanent resident. Both the Special Inquiry Officer and the Board of Immigration Appeals denied his motion because he was statutorily ineligible as there were no immigrant visas immediately available or likely to become so in the near future. See 8 U.S.C. Section 1255. We agree. Moreover, the record is absolutely barren of any evidence or facts to support petitioner's claim that this determination was an abuse of discretion because others similarly situated have been allowed to remain.
The petition to review is denied and the statutory stay is vacated.
Of the Southern District of New York, sitting by designation
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.
