Batista v. Nicolls, No. 4809.
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (1st Circuit) |
| Writing for the Court | MAGRUDER, , and WOODBURY and HARTIGAN, Circuit |
| Citation | 213 F.2d 20 |
| Decision Date | 19 May 1954 |
| Docket Number | No. 4809. |
| Parties | BATISTA et al. v. NICOLLS. |
213 F.2d 20 (1954)
BATISTA et al.
v.
NICOLLS.
No. 4809.
United States Court of Appeals First Circuit.
May 19, 1954.
Morton Silfen, New York City (Jacob Levy, Boston, Mass., and Aaron L. Danzig, New York City, with him on brief), for appellants.
Francis J. DiMento, Asst. U. S. Atty. (Anthony Julian, U. S. Atty., Boston, Mass., with him on brief), for appellee.
Before MAGRUDER, Chief Judge, and WOODBURY and HARTIGAN, Circuit Judges.
MAGRUDER, Chief Judge.
This is a consolidated appeal from judgments of the district court, entered October 21, 1953, dismissing for lack of jurisdiction, upon motion of respondent, three petitions seeking a declaratory judgment, and incidental temporary injunctive relief, under which petitioners sought to bring up for review the validity of orders of deportation. By stipulation our disposition of the Batista case is to determine the disposition of the other two cases.
In the brief record before us, all we know about the facts is contained in the allegations of the petition, from which we gather the following:
Respondent is District Director of Immigration and Naturalization of the District Office located at Boston, Massachusetts, which district includes the Office of Immigration and Naturalization Service at Hartford, Connecticut. On September 9, 1952, a hearing was conducted at the Hartford, Conn., office before a hearing examiner of the Immigration and Naturalization Service to show cause why petitioner should not be deported. On or about September 9, 1952, the hearing officer rendered his decision and order providing that petitioner be permitted to depart from the United States voluntarily at his own expense in lieu of deportation, within a period of time to be determined by the officer in charge of the district, and providing further that if petitioner failed to depart from the United States in the time so granted him, or any extension thereof, he was to be deported pursuant to law on the charge stated in the warrant of arrest. The evidence adduced at said hearing before the hearing examiner was alleged to be in contravention of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States "in that your petitioner was deprived of due process of law in that your petitioner was not adequately represented by counsel or permitted the full exercise of his rights thereof in that he was compelled to testify on matters which might tend to incriminate him, such as his entry into the United States and his purpose in coming to the United States." On or about September 15, 1952, the officer in charge of the Immigration and Naturalization Service at Hartford, Conn., sent a notice to petitioner directing that he arrange to depart from the United States on or before November 15, 1952. It was alleged further that said decision and order of the hearing officer "is a final determination that petitioner be deported and petitioner has exhausted his administrative remedies"; that...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Spinella v. Esperdy
...92 U.S.App.D.C. 328, 206 F.2d 449; Heikkila v. Barber, 1953, 345 U.S. 229, 73 S.Ct. 603, 97 L.Ed. 972; Batista v. Nicolls, 1 Cir., 1954, 213 F.2d 20), it now appears that under the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, judicial review of an administrative deportation order may be obtaine......
-
Zupicich v. Esperdy
...10 of the Administrative Procedure Act could not be extended to provide judicial review other than by habeas corpus. Batista v. Nicolls, 213 F.2d 20, (1st Cir. 1954) 4 See H.R.Rep. No. 1086, 87th Cong., 1st Sess. (1961) (Letter from Deputy Attorney General Byron R. White to Chairman). 5 &qu......
-
Aguilera-Flores v. Landon, No. 16587.
...Rubinstein case in Pedreiro v. Shaughnessy, 1954, 213 F.2d 768. The First Circuit took the contrary position. Batista v. Nicolls, 1954, 213 F.2d 20. I agree with the holding in Rubinstein that Congress, in enacting the 1952 Act, intended that deportation orders be reviewable under Section 1......
-
Pedreiro v. Shaughnessy, No. 276
...328, 206 F.2d 449, affirmed sub nom. Brownell v. Rubinstein, 1954, 346 U.S. 929, 74 S.Ct. 319. See contra, Batista v. Nicolls, 213 F.2d 20, decided by the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit on May 19, Many decisions support the view that the Attorney General, or the Commissioner of Immi......
-
Spinella v. Esperdy
...92 U.S.App.D.C. 328, 206 F.2d 449; Heikkila v. Barber, 1953, 345 U.S. 229, 73 S.Ct. 603, 97 L.Ed. 972; Batista v. Nicolls, 1 Cir., 1954, 213 F.2d 20), it now appears that under the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, judicial review of an administrative deportation order may be obtaine......
-
Zupicich v. Esperdy
...10 of the Administrative Procedure Act could not be extended to provide judicial review other than by habeas corpus. Batista v. Nicolls, 213 F.2d 20, (1st Cir. 1954) 4 See H.R.Rep. No. 1086, 87th Cong., 1st Sess. (1961) (Letter from Deputy Attorney General Byron R. White to Chairman). 5 "* ......
-
Aguilera-Flores v. Landon, No. 16587.
...Rubinstein case in Pedreiro v. Shaughnessy, 1954, 213 F.2d 768. The First Circuit took the contrary position. Batista v. Nicolls, 1954, 213 F.2d 20. I agree with the holding in Rubinstein that Congress, in enacting the 1952 Act, intended that deportation orders be reviewable under Section 1......
-
Pistorino & Co. v. Style Leather Co.
...States Customs Court or of the Court of Customs and Patent Appeals. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1541, 1582, 1583 (1970). Cf. Batista v. Nicolls, 213 F.2d 20, 21--22 (1st Cir.), where declaratory relief was prematurely sought concerning the precise subject matter about which further administrative reli......