Arellano-Flores v. Rosenberg
| Decision Date | 09 November 1962 |
| Docket Number | No. 17764.,17764. |
| Citation | 310 F.2d 118 |
| Parties | Jesus ARELLANO-FLORES, Appellant, v. George K. ROSENBERG, District Director of Immigration, Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
David C. Marcus, Los Angeles, Cal., for appellant.
Francis C. Whelan, U. S. Atty., Donald A. Fareed and James Dooley, Asst. U. S. Attys., Los Angeles, Cal., for appellee.
Before BARNES and HAMLIN, Circuit Judges, and SOLOMON, District Judge.
Appellant, Jesus Arellano-Flores, appeals from the District Court's dismissal of a habeas corpus proceeding in which he challenged the legality of an order for his deportation.
Appellant is a native and citizen of Mexico. He last entered the United States in 1954, although he has been a permanent resident alien in the United States since 1925.
In 1956, appellant was convicted of selling marijuana in violation of § 11,500, Health and Safety Code of the State of California. For this violation, the Los Angeles County Superior Court ordered the proceedings suspended and Arellano-Flores placed on probation for a period of five years on condition that he serve one year in the county jail.
Shortly thereafter, upon notice, a Special Inquiry Officer of the United States Immigration and Naturalization Service held a hearing and ordered appellant deported pursuant to 8 U.S.C.A. § 1251(a) (11), which provides for the deportation of an alien convicted of a narcotics violation.
The Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed the deportation order and issued a warrant of deportation. Appellant then brought proceedings for judicial review of the deportation order. This Court affirmed a judgment which upheld the deportation order and warrant. Arrellano-Flores v. Hoy, 9 Cir. 1958, 262 F.2d 667; cert. denied 362 U.S. 921, 80 S.Ct. 673, 4 L.Ed.2d 740 (1960).
While his petition for certiorari to the United States Supreme Court was pending, appellant asked the Board of Immigration Appeals to reconsider the deportation order. Appellant contended that if his conviction under the California Health Code were to be expunged under California Penal Code, § 1203.4,1 then there would be no conviction to support the deportation order. The Board of Immigration Appeals denied the motion.
On May 13, 1960, appellant filed a motion in the Los Angeles County Superior Court to terminate his probation, dismiss the cause, set aside the plea of guilty, and enter a plea of not guilty. In accordance with the provisions of §§ 1203.32 and 1203.4, California Penal Code, the Court granted the motion. Appellant again requested the Board of Immigration Appeals to reconsider its decision and order, but the Board denied the motion on the ground that on October 12, 1959, the Attorney General of the United States had ruled that an expungement based upon a statute such as the California Penal Code, §§ 1203.3 and 1203.4, would not invalidate a finding of deportability under Title 8 U.S.C.A. § 1251(a) (11).
On May 20, 1960, appellant filed a declaratory judgment action, Civil Action No. 582-60 WB, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California, in which he challenged the validity of the deportation order on the ground that the order was made moot and the warrant void by the May 13, 1960, proceedings in the Los Angeles County Superior Court.
The District Court found that the deportation order was valid and Arellano-Flores deportable on the ground that the termination of probation and the expungement of the record of conviction in accordance with the California State law did not wipe out the conviction within the meaning of Title 8 U.S.C.A. § 1251 (a) (11). Appellant did not appeal.
On June 20, 1961, Arellano-Flores filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the same District Court. He again challenged the validity of the deportation order. He raised the identical grounds which he asserted in the prior action, Civil Action No. 582-60 WB, but instead of again bringing a declaratory judgment proceeding, he filed a habeas corpus petition. The trial court held that all of the issues raised by the petition concerning Arellano-Flores' deportability and the validity of the order of deportation were determined by the judgment in the prior declaratory judgment action, and, on the theory of res judicata, may not be relitigated. The Court also held that even if the doctrine of res judicata were not applicable, the order of deportation is valid and Flores deportable for the reasons set forth in the findings, conclusions and judgment of Civil Action No. 582-60 WB.
We need not consider the alternative holding by the District Court, for we hold that the declaratory judgment was final and determinative of all of the issues raised in the present habeas corpus proceeding.
Either habeas corpus or declaratory judgment proceedings are appropriate to review deportation or exclusion orders. Shaughnessy v. Pedreiro, 349 U.S. 48, 75 S.Ct. 591, 99 L.Ed. 868 (1955); Brownell v. Tom We Shung, 352 U.S. 180, 77 S.Ct. 252, 1 L.Ed.2d 225 (1956). But judicial relief is not intended to be cumulative. This Court on two occasions has held that the validity of a deportation order may not be relitigated on the same issues in collateral proceedings. Cruz-Sanchez v. Robinson, 249 F. 2d 771 (1957). Rystad v. Boyd, 246 F.2d 246 (1957); cert. denied 355 U.S. 912, 78 S.Ct. 340, 2 L.Ed.2d 273; rehearing denied 355 U.S. 967, 78 S.Ct. 534, 2 L. Ed.2d 543 (1958).
In Cruz-Sanchez v. Robinson, supra, an alien who was ordered deported failed to appeal a decision rendered against him in a habeas corpus proceeding. He later filed a petition for declaratory judgment. In a persuasive opinion the District Court denied relief. Cruz-Sanchez v. Robinson, 136 F.Supp. 52 (D.C.S.D.Cal. 1955). Cruz-Sanchez appealed, and we denied relief:
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wacker v. Bisson
...petition against the same order of deportation or exclusion and a fortiori against the same extradition order. See Arellano-Flores v. Rosenberg, 9 Cir. 1962, 310 F.2d 118; Cruz-Sanchez v. Robinson, 9 Cir. 1957, 249 F.2d 771; Sigurdson v. Del Guercio, S.D.Calif., 1957, 154 F.Supp. It is impo......
-
Matter of O'Sullivan
...issues on writ of habeas corpus, which was denied by the same District Court. That decision has been affirmed. Arellano-Flores v. Rosenberg, 310 F. 2d 118 (C.A. 9, 11/9/62). The Court of Appeals did not reach the merits of the petitioner's contention that the deportation proceedings had bee......
-
Kelly v. Immigration and Naturalization Service
...a second point, made for the record only, reliance upon which is precluded in this court by our previous rulings in Arrellano-Flores v. Rosenberg, 310 F.2d 118 (1962) and Gutierrez v. I. & N. Service, 323 F.2d 593 1 In Fong Haw Tan, the court was concerned with the interpretation of Section......
-
Pizarro v. District Director of United States I. & N. Serv.
...349 U.S. 48, 75 S.Ct. 591, 99 L.Ed. 868; Brownell v. Tom We Shung, 352 U.S. 180, 77 S.Ct. 252, 1 L.Ed.2d 225; Arellano-Flores v. Rosenberg, 310 F.2d 118 (9 Cir. 1962). 2 8 U.S.C. § 1154(b); 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a) 3 Dictionary of Occupational Titles, Third Edition, Vol. II; Occupational Outlook ......