Arakas v. Zimmerman, 10753.
Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (3rd Circuit) |
Writing for the Court | GOODRICH, McLAUGHLIN and STALEY, Circuit |
Citation | 200 F.2d 322 |
Parties | ARAKAS v. ZIMMERMAN. |
Docket Number | No. 10753.,10753. |
Decision Date | 04 December 1952 |
200 F.2d 322 (1952)
ARAKAS
v.
ZIMMERMAN.
No. 10753.
United States Court of Appeals Third Circuit.
Argued October 14, 1952.
Decided December 4, 1952.
Lena L. Orlow, Philadelphia, Pa. (Orlow & Orlow, Philadelphia, Pa., on the brief), for appellant.
Alfred L. Luongo, Asst. U. S. Atty., Philadelphia, Pa. (Gerald A. Gleeson, U. S. Atty., Philadelphia, Pa., William B. Taffet, District Counsel, Immigration and Naturalization Service, Philadelphia, Pa., on the brief), for appellee.
Before GOODRICH, McLAUGHLIN and STALEY, Circuit Judges.
McLAUGHLIN, Circuit Judge.
This is an appeal from an order of the district court granting appellee's motion to dismiss a petition for a writ of habeas corpus.
Appellant, a Greek national, entered this country as a seaman in 1927. While here he jumped ship and thereafter remained illegally in the United States. Sometime later expulsion proceedings were instituted against him. After hearing he was ordered deported and was actually deported on November 9, 1932. On October 26, 1942, he reentered the United States as an alien seaman.
On October 6, 1949, appellant was ordered to surrender for deportation. He petitioned the Commissioner for a stay so that he might become eligible for a suspension of deportation under the seven years' residence provision of a 1948 amendment to the Immigration Act, 8 U.S.C.A. Section 155(c), infra. The Commissioner denied the application. Arakas appealed to the Board and at the same time moved for reopening of the proceedings for consideration of suspension of deportation. The Board denied both the application for stay and motion to reopen by its order of October 26, 1949. He, having by that time established his seven years' residence, applied to the Board for a reopening of the proceedings. The motion was denied and the petition for habeas corpus followed. The motion to dismiss that petition was granted by the district court on September 26, 1951.
The issue before us is whether, on the above facts, due process requires that appellant be granted a hearing on his application for suspension of deportation.
Under the governing law, 8 U.S. C.A. Section 155(c), the pertinent amendment to which became effective July 21, 1948,1 it was within the discretion of the Attorney General to suspend the deportation of Arakas as the latter's status came within the provisions of the section. He had resided in the United States continuously for seven years and was so residing upon the effective date of the amendment to the statute. The fact that a large part of that residence was within a period when he was actually under an order of deportation does not militate against its validity, and this is conceded by the Government. It...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Angelis v. Bouchard, Civ. A. No. 883-59.
...an application for suspension of deportation, although brought under the 1917 Immigration Act, is Arakas v. Zimmerman, 3 Cir., 1952, 200 F.2d 322, in which the Court of Appeals was confronted with the question whether the applicant for suspension of deportation had been accorded due process......
-
Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Jong Ha Wang, 80-485
...the present procedures, the grant or denial of a motion to reopen was solely within the discretion of the Board. See Arakas v. Zimmerman, 200 F.2d 322, 323-324, and n. 2 (CA3 1952). The present regulation is framed negatively; it directs the Board not to reopen unless certain showings are m......
-
Wolf v. Boyd, 15101.
...record. This the Board was entitled to do. United States ex rel. Adel v. Shaughnessy, 2 Cir., 183 F.2d 371; Arakas v. Zimmerman, 3 Cir., 200 F.2d 322. Petitioner in effect asserts that because she sees fit to designate her petition a "Motion to Reopen" rather than "Application for Suspensio......
-
Matter of Reyes, Interim Decision Number 2907
...provided that the grant or denial of a motion to reopen was solely within the discretion of the Board. See Arakas v. Zimmerman, 200 F. 2d 322, 323 n. 2 (3 Cir. 1952); Kavadias v. Cross, 82 F. Supp. 716, 719-20 (N.D. Ind. 1948). We do not find the absence of such specific authorization in th......