holding, in the case of an alien who helped others illegally cross the border, that his visit lost its innocent purpose when he decided to engage in the unlawful act
How later courts described this case
- holding, in the case of an alien who helped others illegally cross the border, that his visit lost its innocent purpose when he decided to engage in the unlawful act
- “Petitioner’s plea of guilty[, admitting that he violated 8 U.S.C. § 1325 and 18 U.S.C. § 2 ,] established that he know- ingly abetted and aided other aliens to enter the United States in violation of law within the meaning of 8 U.S.C. § 1251 (a)(13).”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
BROWNING, Circuit Judge
(concurring):
I concur under the compulsion of the holding in Palatian v. Immigration & Naturalization Service, 502 F.2d 1091 (9th Cir. 1974), that an “entry” is conclusively established by proof of unlawful conduct by an alien while abroad, regardless of other indicia of the alien’s actual intention. In my opinion, however, Palatian fails to give reasonable scope to the holding of Rosenberg v. Fleuti, 374 U.S. 449, 462 , 83 S.Ct. 1804, 1812 , 10 L.Ed.2d 1000 (1962), that an “entry” occurs only when there is “an intent to depart in a manner which can be regarded as meaningfully interruptive of the alien’s permanent residence.” Palatian adopts a mechanical and restrictive interpretation of Rosenberg v. Fleuti, inconsistent with that applied in such cases as Vargas-Banuelos v. Immigration & Naturalization Service, 466 F.2d 1371 *885 (5th Cir. 1972); Yanez-Jacquez v. Immigration & Naturalization Service, 440 F.2d 701 (5th Cir. 1971); Lozano-Giron v. Immigration & Naturalization Service, 506 F.2d 1073 (7th Cir. 1974). Controlling weight should not be given to only one of several factors the Supreme Court stated could support an inference of “intent to depart,” when the evidence as a whole strongly suggests a contrary intent, as it does in this case.