Ceballos v. Shaughnessy
| Decision Date | 06 February 1956 |
| Docket Number | No. 130,Docket 23721.,130 |
| Citation | 229 F.2d 592 |
| Parties | Luis Alvaro CEBALLOS (y Arboleda), Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Edward J. SHAUGHNESSY, District Director of Immigration and Naturalization at the Port of New York, Defendant-Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit |
Blanch Freedman and Gloria Agrin, New York City, for plaintiff-appellant.
Paul W. Williams, New York City (Harold J. Raby and Maurice N. Nessen, New York City, of counsel), for defendant-appellee.
Before MEDINA, HINCKS and WATERMAN, Circuit Judges.
Plaintiff, an alien, seeks inter alia a declaratory judgment that he is not ineligible for naturalization under 8 U.S. C.A. § 155(c)1 and, in effect, a stay of deportation until the Attorney General exercises his discretion with respect to plaintiff's application for suspension of deportation. The complaint, brought against the District Director of Immigration, was dismissed below on the procedural ground that the Attorney General or the Commissioner of Immigration and Naturalization was an indispensable party.
Judge Kaufman followed and elaborated upon the distinction we made in Pedreiro v. Shaughnessy, 2 Cir., 213 F.2d 768, affirmed 349 U.S. 48, 75 S.Ct. 591, 99 L.Ed. 868, between a challenge to deportability, as in Pedreiro, and a claim that, notwithstanding deportability, the Attorney General should exercise his discretion in favor of the issuance of an order suspending deportation, as in De Pinho Vaz v. Shaughnessy, 2 Cir., 208 F.2d 70, and in the case now before us. Although the question is not free from doubt, we shall follow our reasoning in Vaz and more fully stated in the opinion below. While the Supreme Court may decide that the distinction no longer holds, we do not think this is to be spelled out of Mr. Justice Black's opinion in Pedreiro.
In any event, the decision below must be affirmed because, as a matter of law, plaintiff is not entitled to the relief he requests. For 8 U.S.C.A. § 155(c) permits his application for suspension of deportation to be considered only if he is eligible for citizenship. Plaintiff, however, admits that he signed a DSS Form 301: Application by Alien for Relief from Military Service. Plaintiff heard nothing further from his Draft Board until his country of citizenship became a belligerent and he was, consequently, no longer entitled to claim exemption as a neutral alien. Whether this was cause or coincidence, as the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Estrada v. Ahrens
...him to go to the District of Columbia to obtain judicial review. This decision did not settle the controversy. In Ceballos v. Shaughnessy, 2 Cir., 1956, 229 F.2d 592, the Second Circuit distinguished Pedreiro and dismissed the suit for failure to join the Commissioner.6 The Supreme Court, 7......
-
Schuetzle v. Duba
...of another contention that the Secretary of Agriculture is an indispensable party. See Ceballos v. Shaughnessy, 130 F.Supp. 30, affirmed 229 F.2d 592, affirmed 352 U.S. 599, 77 S.Ct. 545, 1 L.Ed.2d 583, May v. Maurer, 10 Cir., 185 F.2d 475, and Larson v. Domestic Foreign Corp., 337 U.S. 682......
-
Paris v. Shaughnessy
...76) * * *." Note also the "unless otherwise specifically provided" provision of § 405(a), the savings clause. 16 See Ceballos v. Shaughnessy, 2 Cir., 229 F.2d 592. ...
-
Ceballos v. Shaughnessy
...provision of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, 66 Stat. 230, 8 U.S.C. § 1329, 8 U.S.C.A. § 1329. 2 130 F.Supp. 30, 31. 3 229 F.2d 592, 593. 4 351 U.S. 981, 76 S.Ct. 1047, 100 L.Ed. 5 Section 19(c) of the Immigration Act of 1917, as amended, provided in pertinent part: 'In the cas......