# Lee Fook Chuey, Also Known as Huey Gock Yut and Jimmie Huey v. Immigration and Naturalization Service

> Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · February 22, 1971 · 439 F.2d 244

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9456605

## Case

- **Full name:** LEE FOOK CHUEY, Also Known as Huey Gock Yut and Jimmie Huey, Petitioner, v. IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE, Respondent
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
- **Decided:** February 22, 1971
- **Citations:** 439 F.2d 244
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Carter
- **Judges:** Barnes, Hamley, Carter
- **Cited by:** 36 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9456605

## Opinion text

JAMES M. CARTER, Circuit Judge
(dissenting).
I vote to grant the government’s petition for rehearing, and the petition to hear en banc.
ORDER
A majority of the panel as constituted in the above case has voted to deny the petition for rehearing and to reject the suggestion for a rehearing en banc, Judge Carter dissenting.
The full court has been advised of the suggestion for an en banc hearing and of the panel vote, and a majority of the judges of the court has voted to deny a rehearing en banc (Fed.R.App.P. 35(b)); Judges Carter and Wright voting for a rehearing and a hearing en banc.
The petition for rehearing is denied and the suggestion for a rehearing en banc is rejected, in accordance with the “Order on Petition for Rehearing” filed herein this date.
JAMES M. CARTER, Circuit Judge, dissenting from Order Denying Petition for Rehearing and Hearing In Banc.
I originally concurred in the well written opinion prepared by my brother Barnes, in the above case. Thereafter, the Attorney General filed a strong and convincing petition for rehearing and suggestion for rehearing in banc. That petition convinced me and several of my colleagues, the case should be heard in banc.
The panel has now issued an order denying the petition for rehearing and a majority of the judges in active service have rejected the suggestion for a rehearing in banc. I dissent from the order denying the petition for rehearing, and rely for my dissent on the grounds set forth in the excellent presentation made by the Attorney General in the petition for rehearing; and on the case of United States v. Osuna-Picos (D.C.So.Dist.Cal.1970) 319 F.Supp. 558 , written by Judge Turrentine.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9456605. Public record. Not legal advice.