Legal Opinion
HO
Board of Immigration Appeals
Decided July 1, 1988No. ID 3051PublishedCited by 48 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Interim Decision 4t 8051 MATTER OF HO In Visa Petition Proceedings A-24247019 Decided by Board March 17, 1988 (1) The petitioner bears the burden in visa petition revocation proceedings of estab- lishing that the beneficiary qualifies for the benefit sought under the immigration laws. Matter of Cheung
12 I&N Dec. 715
(BIA 1968), reaffirmed- (2) Approval of a visa petition vests no rights in the beneficiary of the petition but is only a preliminary step in the visa or adjustment of status application procebs, and the beneficiary is not, by mere approval of the petition, entitled to an immi-…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Tongatapu Woodcraft Hawaii, Ltd. v. Sam I. Feldman, District Director, Immigration and Naturalization ServiceCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1984
- Linda Lee Amarante v. Rosenberg, District Director, Immigration and Naturalization ServiceCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1964
- ESTIMEBoard of Immigration Appeals · 1987
- COKERBoard of Immigration Appeals · 1974
- Joseph v. LandonCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1982
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by48 opinions
- Bernardo Ex Rel. M & K Engineering, Inc. v. JohnsonCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 2016
- Herrera v. US Citizenship and Immigration ServicesCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2009
- PATELBoard of Immigration Appeals · 1988
- Love Korean Church v. ChertoffCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2008
- Nat'l Venture Capital Ass'n v. DukeCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 2017
43 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.