Application of Orlando, Civ. 5342.

• Decision Date: 02 October 1954
• Docket Number: Civ. 5342.
• Citation: 131 F. Supp. 485
• Parties: Application of Carmella ORLANDO, for a Writ of Habeas Corpus, to inquire into the detention of Frank or Francesco Orlando, by the District Director of Immigration and Naturalization, or his deputies at Syracuse, New York.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of New York

131 F. Supp. 485

Application of Carmella ORLANDO, for a Writ of Habeas Corpus, to inquire into the detention of Frank or Francesco Orlando, by the District Director of Immigration and Naturalization, or his deputies at Syracuse, New York.

Civ. 5342.

United States District Court N. D. New York.

October 2, 1954.

Theodore F. Bowes, U. S. Atty., Syracuse, N. Y., Herman I. Branse, Buffalo, N. Y., of the Immigration and Naturalization Service, of counsel, for the United States.

Smith & Sovik, Syracuse, N. Y., William J. Mackay, Syracuse, N. Y., of counsel, for petitioner.

BRENNAN, District Judge.

Frank Orlando, in whose behalf a petition is filed herein, seeks relief through the medium of a writ of habeas corpus in the matter of the denial of his application for the suspension of a warrant or order for his deportation. For convenience, Orlando, will be referred to as the petitioner.

The petitioner is an alien, native of Italy, who claims to have entered the United States as a stowaway in April 1924. He has remained a resident of this country, since his entry, which has never been legally validated. That he is subject to be deported appears to be conceded and as in United States ex rel. James v. Shaughnessy, 2 Cir., 202 F.2d 519 the issue is narrowed to a consideration of the contention that he was denied a fair hearing in the matter of his application for suspension of deportation.

Upon the deportation hearing held October 21, 1953, application under Section 244 of the Immigration and Nationality Act was made for suspension of deportation in accordance with the procedure contemplated by 8 C.F.R. 242.54 (d). Formal request for such relief was thereafter filed, an investigation was made, and the report of a special inquiry officer denying the application was filed December 22, 1953. An appeal was taken to the Board of Immigration Appeals, a brief was filed in behalf of the alien, oral argument was had before the Board, and on July 19, 1954, the application for suspension of deportation was denied and the appeal dismissed. The application for a writ of habeas corpus essentially charges that the petitioner was denied a fair hearing in the matter involved before the Special Inquiry Officer, the effects of which were carried over into the proceedings before the Board, and that petitioner was thereby deprived of the fundamental rights of essential fairness which are his, thereby rendering the decision of the Board invalid.

Specifically it is urged that the Special Inquiry Officer and the Board of Immigration Appeals used an erroneous standard in considering the alien's eligibility for suspension of deportation, that they concluded that the alien was ineligible and discretion was not in fact exercised, that the record improperly contained writings not introduced in evidence which afford the basis for the ultimate decision and that the decision was also based upon the unwarranted use of confidential information.

In resolving the contentions the court has in mind the procedures afforded in order that the discretion authorized by the statute may be exercised, the limited extent of the courts reviewing power, and the overall requirement that meticulous care be taken that the essential standards of fairness be at all times observed in the important matter involved. That the petitioner here may invoke the discretion of the Attorney General under the provisions of Section 244 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C.A. § 1254, is not disputed. He must bear the burden of showing residence within the United States for seven years preceding the application, that he was and is a person of good moral character during that period and that his deportation would result in exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to him, his citizen wife or child. The powers of the Attorney General granted in the above section, have been delegated in accordance with applicable statutes and regulations to a special inquiry officer whose decision is subject to review by the Board of Immigration Appeals whose decision is final. 8 U.S.C.A. § 1103; 8 C.F.R. 242.6, 242.6 (e), 6.1(b) (2), 6.1(d), (1), (2).

Although variously expressed in reported cases the power of this Court in this proceeding is limited to determining that "procedural due process" was afforded the petitioner in the proceedings which culminated in the assailed order, United States ex rel. Harisiades v. Shaughnessy, 2 Cir., 187 F.2d 137, at page 141, and that if discretion was exercised, no abuse of same occurred. United States ex rel. Frangoulis v. Shaughnessy, 2 Cir., 210 F.2d 572. The essential standards of fairness referred to in Bridges v. Wixon, 326 U.S. 135, at page 154, 65 S.Ct. 1443, 89 L.Ed. 2103 are not violated by defects unless same lead to a denial of justice. Marcello v. Ahrens, 5 Cir., 212 F.2d 830, at page 837. From the above precedents and cases cited therein, it seems clear that the courts duty here is to make an overall evaluation of the procedures used, the facts disclosed, and the decision reached with the understanding that the order is unassailable if the statutory procedures are fairly followed.

The contention that "economic detriment" was erroneously used to determine the applicant's eligibility arises from the use of the term, principally in the heading or introductory paragraphs of reports or decisions. The use of the term doubtless arises from long familiarity with the requirements of the statute as it existed prior to the passage of the present Act (1952). It is abundantly clear that the Board followed the proper standard for they specifically referred to "exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to the respondent or his family within the meaning of Section 244(a) (1) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952" in their decision.

It is true that...