Estevez v. Brownell, No. 12417.
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia) |
| Writing for the Court | EDGERTON, WILBUR K. MILLER, and FAHY, Circuit |
| Citation | 227 F.2d 38 |
| Parties | Jose Bernardo ESTEVEZ, Appellant, v. Herbert BROWNELL, Jr., Attorney General of the United States, Appellee. |
| Docket Number | No. 12417. |
| Decision Date | 13 October 1955 |
227 F.2d 38 (1955)
Jose Bernardo ESTEVEZ, Appellant,
v.
Herbert BROWNELL, Jr., Attorney General of the United States, Appellee.
No. 12417.
United States Court of Appeals District of Columbia Circuit.
Argued April 19, 1955.
Decided October 13, 1955.
Mr. Max Zelden, New Orleans, La., of the bar of the Supreme Court of Louisiana, pro hac vice, by special leave of Court, with whom Messrs. E. L. Koepenick, Jr., and John C. Dougherty, Washington, D. C., were on the brief, for appellant.
Mr. Lewis Carroll, Asst. U. S. Atty., with whom Messrs. Leo A. Rover, U. S. Atty., Robert L. Toomey, Asst. U. S. Atty., and Albert L. Reitzel, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Immigration and Naturalization Service, were on the brief, for appellee.
Before EDGERTON, WILBUR K. MILLER, and FAHY, Circuit Judges.
EDGERTON, Circuit Judge.
Appellant's complaint, filed in 1954, says he is a native and citizen of Honduras, last arrived in the United States in 1953, and was ordered excluded under § 212(a) (22) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, 66 Stat. 184, 8 U.S.C.A. § 1182(a) (22), on the ground that he had previously left the United States to avoid military service. He contends that the necessary intent was not shown and that the exclusion proceedings were defective in other respects. He asks that these proceedings be declared void. The District Court dismissed his complaint on the ground that the court had no jurisdiction because an order of exclusion cannot be reviewed except by habeas corpus. We think the court erred.
If appellant were attacking a deportation order instead of an exclusion order, his right to the review he seeks would be clear. Shaughnessy v. Pedreiro, 349 U.S. 48, 75 S.Ct. 591. We think the principle of that case extends to this one.1 The pertinent provisions of the 1952 Act in respect to deportation and in respect to exclusion are substantially similar. Section 242(b) says: "In any case in which an alien is ordered deported * * * the decision of the Attorney General shall be final * * *." 66 Stat. 210, 8 U.S.C.A. § 1252(b). Section 236(c) says: "where an alien is excluded from admission * * * the decision of a special inquiry officer shall be final unless reversed on appeal to the Attorney General." 66 Stat. 200, 8 U.S.C.A. § 1226(c).
It is irrelevant that with regard to a "person who has been issued a certificate of identity under the provisions of subsection (b)" and is "in possession thereof", § 360(c) of the Act provides that a ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Savoretti, Civ. No. 6705-M
...repeal the case of United States ex rel. Knauff v. Shaughnessy, 338 U.S. 537, 70 S.Ct. 309, 94 L.Ed. 317; Estevez v. Brownell, D.C. Cir., 227 F.2d 38, and Wong Kay Suey v. Brownell, D.C.Cir., 227 F.2d 41. It seems clear that Congress has made the Director of Immigration and the Attorney Gen......
-
Shung v. Brownell, No. 12117.
...corpus." We think the court had jurisdiction to review the order of exclusion. 227 F.2d 41 Estevez v. Brownell, 97 U.S.App.D.C. ___, 227 F.2d 38. Since the complaint was filed after the 1952 Act took effect, we think it immaterial, so far as the right to judicial review is concerned, that t......
-
Trilivas v. Brownell, No. 12373.
...District of Columbia Circuit. Argued April 18, 1955. Decided October 13, 1955. Mr. Joseph J. Lyman, Washington, D. C., for appellant. 227 F.2d 38 Mr. Lewis Carroll, Asst. U. S. Atty., with whom Messrs. Leo A. Rover, U. S. Atty., George E. Hamilton, III, Asst. U. S. Atty., and Albert E. Reit......
-
United States v. Savoretti, Civ. No. 6705-M
...repeal the case of United States ex rel. Knauff v. Shaughnessy, 338 U.S. 537, 70 S.Ct. 309, 94 L.Ed. 317; Estevez v. Brownell, D.C. Cir., 227 F.2d 38, and Wong Kay Suey v. Brownell, D.C.Cir., 227 F.2d 41. It seems clear that Congress has made the Director of Immigration and the Attorney Gen......
-
Shung v. Brownell, No. 12117.
...corpus." We think the court had jurisdiction to review the order of exclusion. 227 F.2d 41 Estevez v. Brownell, 97 U.S.App.D.C. ___, 227 F.2d 38. Since the complaint was filed after the 1952 Act took effect, we think it immaterial, so far as the right to judicial review is concerned, that t......
-
Trilivas v. Brownell, No. 12373.
...District of Columbia Circuit. Argued April 18, 1955. Decided October 13, 1955. Mr. Joseph J. Lyman, Washington, D. C., for appellant. 227 F.2d 38 Mr. Lewis Carroll, Asst. U. S. Atty., with whom Messrs. Leo A. Rover, U. S. Atty., George E. Hamilton, III, Asst. U. S. Atty., and Albert E. Reit......