- 9 - Instead, petitioner stated that he "stayed at a friend's place". Further, petitioner stated that the house in Central Square was unoccupied and "was just sitting there in 1991." Thus, we conclude that petitioner's house in Delhi where he and his family resided was his residence as defined by the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Therefore, petitioner was not "away from home" for purposes of section 162. Accordingly, respondent is sustained on this issue. Decision will be entered under Rule 155.Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Last modified: May 25, 2011