Diogo v. Holland
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
1Per curiam
These appellants were admitted to this country as non-immigrant business visitors. They obtained unauthorized gainful employment shortly after arrival here and failed to maintain their non-immigrant business vistor status.
No question is raised as to the above facts. However, it is urged on appellants’ behalf that their arrests were illegal; that the decisions of the presiding immigration officer were not based: on proper evidence and that appellee was-not entitled to summary judgment.
By the Act of August 7, 1946, 60 Stat. 865,* properly authorized employees of the Immigration and…
2Cited by7 opinions
- United States v. Rudolph Ivanovich Abel, Also Known as "Mark" and Also Known as Martin Collins and Emil R. GoldfusCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1958
- United States v. Agapita CantuCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1975
- Neese v. Fireman's Fund Insurance CompanyCourt of Appeals of Tennessee · 1964
- Tennessee Racquetball Investors, Ltd. v. BellCourt of Appeals of Tennessee · 1986
- Davila v. United StatesDistrict Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · 2017
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.