Legal Opinion

Angco v. Haig

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania

Decided May 29, 1981No. Civ. A. 79-4636PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

DITTER, District Judge.

In this action, I am called upon to construe “a unique and obscure provision” 1 of the Immigration and Nationality Act Amendments of 1976 (“the 1976 amendments”). Section 202(e) of the 1976 amendments alters the manner in which citizens of a foreign country are admitted to the United States as permanent residents. The change occurs with respect to a particular foreign nation whenever the maximum number of immigrant visas have been made available to its natives during the preceding fiscal year. The plaintiffs, all third and sixth preference applicants from the…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. Blue Chip Stamps v. Manor Drug StoresSupreme Court of the United States · 1975
  2. Southeastern Community College v. DavisSupreme Court of the United States · 1979
  3. Zemel v. RuskSupreme Court of the United States · 1965
  4. Quern v. MandleySupreme Court of the United States · 1978
  5. United States v. WeldenSupreme Court of the United States · 1964

7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Jose Manuel Olivares and Balbina Peraza Olivares v. Immigration and Naturalization ServiceCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1982
  2. Acosta v. HaigDistrict Court, N.D. Illinois · 1981

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API