Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Prassert Paointhara v. Immigration and Naturalization Service
Prassert Paointhara v. Immigration & Naturalization Serv., 721 F.2d 651 (9th Cir. 1983)
- Type
- Opinion
- Court
- Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
- Date
- 1983-11-16
- Topic
- international-arbitration
ORDER The petition for rehearing is denied. The opinion is amended as follows: Delete from opinion dated June 15, 1983, commencing at page 2823, first column, line 4 of slip op., 708 F.2d 472 at page 474, second column, line 11, the following: “Only by implication from the silences in this colloquy can it be inferred, if indeed it can be inferred at all, that petitioner, through his counsel, admitted his alienage. While we are aware of the need for dispatch in bringing deportation proceedings to a close, we *652 cannot accept inferences borne only by silence as substantial and probative evidence” and insert in its stead: “We hold that counsel’s statements were too ambiguous”
Citator
UpLaw has not yet analyzed Prassert Paointhara v. Immigration and Naturalization Service. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.
- Cited by
- 5 opinions
ORDER
The petition for rehearing is denied. The opinion is amended as follows:
Delete from opinion dated June 15, 1983, commencing at page 2823, first column, line 4 of slip op., 708 F.2d 472 at page 474, second column, line 11, the following:
“Only by implication from the silences in this colloquy can it be inferred, if indeed it can be inferred at all, that petitioner, through his counsel, admitted his alienage. While we are aware of the need for dispatch in bringing deportation proceedings to a close, we *652 cannot accept inferences borne only by silence as substantial and probative evidence”
and insert in its stead:
“We hold that counsel’s statements were too ambiguous”