Ex parte Piazzola

Decision Date07 July 1926
Citation18 F.2d 114
PartiesEx parte PIAZZOLA.
CourtU.S. District Court — Western District of New York

Alfred F. Cohen, of Buffalo, N. Y., for petitioner.

Richard H. Templeton, U. S. Atty., of Buffalo, N. Y., opposed.

KNOX, District Judge.

The record in this case does not disclose that the crime of manslaughter, upon which the relator was convicted and sentenced to prison for a term of more than one year, was committed within 5 years of his original entry into the United States. That entry was upon December 8, 1913. Relator's conviction for manslaughter occurred on December 18, 1918. By these dates it will be seen that the conviction was not had until 10 days after the expiration of the 5-year period provided in section 19 of the Immigration Act of February 5, 1917 (Comp. St. ß 4289ºjj). Aliunde the record, it appears that the crime for which the alien was convicted was committed upon may 22, 1918.

In the case of Hughes, Commissioner v. Tropello, 296 F. 306, it was said that, in order to justify the deportation of an alien whose entry into the United States was lawful, upon the ground that he has been guilty of some offense forfeiting the right to remain, his guilt of the crime must be judicially determined in a proceeding concluded within the period of 5 years after the alien's entry into the country. For this reason, doubtless, the officials of the Department of Labor, in issuing the warrant of deportation of December 5, 1923, do not rely upon the date of relator's original entry into the country, but upon the fact that, during his residence at Niagara Falls, N. Y., he crossed over the International Bridge in July, 1916, and remained for two days in the Dominion of Canada.

Other than that this appears from the examination of the relator at his deportation hearing, there is no record of his having left and re-entered the country. The resident judge of this district has ruled in Re Michael Bonadino, decided December 20, 1924, that an alien resident of the city of Buffalo, who went to Crystal Beach, a Canadian summer resort, a few miles from Buffalo, for recreation, and who returned to Buffalo on the same day, was not within the meaning of the immigration laws relating to the departure of aliens from, and their re-entry into, the United States.

The decision in Guimond v. Howes (D. C.) 9 F.(2d) 412, while based upon a somewhat different state of facts, may be considered an authority to the contrary. It was there held that, when an alien remained in this country...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • Rosenberg v. Fleuti
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • June 17, 1963
    ...States ex rel. Ueberall v. Williams, 187 F. 470 (D.C.S.D.N.Y.1911); Guimond v. Howes, 9 F.2d 412 (D.C.D.Maine 1925); Ex parte Piazzola, 18 F.2d 114 (D.C.W.D.N.Y.1926). 6 In re Michael Bonadino, D.C.W.D.N.Y., unreported, Dec. 20, 1924; United States ex rel. Valenti v. Karmuth, 1 F.Supp. 370 ......
  • United States v. Reimer
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York
    • March 21, 1938
    ...how brief, is an entry within the meaning of the statute. United States ex rel. Kowalenski v. Flynn, 17 F.2d 524, D. C.N.Y.; Ex parte Piazzola, 18 F.2d 114, D.C.N.Y.; United States ex rel. Medich v. Burmaster, 8 Cir., 24 F.2d 57; Ex parte Rocha, 30 F.2d 823, D.C.Tex.; United States ex rel. ......
  • THE KATHLAMBRA
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York
    • November 30, 1926

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT