889 F2d 1095 Leoncio v. United States

889 F.2d 1095

Unpublished Disposition

NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel.

Benigno Ong LEONCIO, Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES of America, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 88-6702.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Nov. 1, 1989.*
Decided Nov. 22, 1989.

Before WILLIAM A. NORRIS, REINHARDT and TROTT, Circuit Judges.


Advertisement
view counter
1

MEMORANDUM**

2

Benigno Ong Leoncio appeals in pro per from the District Court's judgment denying his petition for naturalization. We affirm.

3

Appellant is a Filipino national who served honorably in the United States armed forces during World War II. Appellant filed a naturalization petition, claiming that he was entitled to naturalization under the now-expired Sections 701 and 702 of the Nationality Act of 1940. In his petition, appellant asserted that he was a Category I war veteran as defined in Matter of Naturalization of 68 Filipino War Veterans, 406 F.Supp. 931 (N.D.Cal.1975). The District Court held that INS v. Pangilinan, 108 S.Ct. 2210 (1988), bars the naturalization of any petitioners under Sections 701 and 702 of the Nationality Act of 1940, and consequently denied appellant's petition.

4

Appellant concedes that Pangilinan bars the naturalization under Sections 701 and 702 of those war veterans classified in 68 Veterans as Category II and Category III veterans. However, he argues that Pangilinan does not bar the naturalization of Category I veterans. This argument was squarely rejected by Agcaoili v. Gustafson, 870 F.2d 462 (9th Cir.1989) (per curiam), which held that the rule of Pangilinan extends to Category I veterans as well as Category II and III veterans.

5

Appellant argues that Agcaoili was wrongly decided and should therefore be disregarded. We are without authority to reexamine Ninth Circuit law. Greenhow v. Secretary of Health and Human Servs., 863 F.2d 633 (9th Cir.1988).

6

AFFIRMED.

*

The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. Fed.R.App.P. 34(a) and Ninth Circuit Rule 34-4


Advertisement
view counter
**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3