Legal Opinion

Diogo v. Holland

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit

Decided April 3, 1957No. Nos. 12121-12123PublishedCited by 7 opinions

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

  1. 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
  2. United States v. Agapita CantuCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1975
  3. Neese v. Fireman's Fund Insurance CompanyCourt of Appeals of Tennessee · 1964
  4. Tennessee Racquetball Investors, Ltd. v. BellCourt of Appeals of Tennessee · 1986
  5. Davila v. United StatesDistrict Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · 2017

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

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

Powered by the Exa API