Hein v. United States Immigration and Naturalization Serv., 71-2632.
| Decision Date | 17 March 1972 |
| Docket Number | No. 71-2632.,71-2632. |
| Citation | 456 F.2d 1239 |
| Parties | Peter Hugo HEIN, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE, Respondent. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
Harry H. Walsh, Staff Counsel for Inmates, Texas Department of Corrections, Huntsville, Tex., for petitioner.
John N. Mitchell, Atty. Gen. of the U. S. Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C., Troy A. Adams, Jr., District Director, Immigration and Nat. Service, New Orleans, La., Hoyt Harris, District Director, Immigration & Nat. Service, Port Isabell, Tex., James Gough, B. Stephen Rice, Asst. U. S. Attys., Houston, Tex., for respondent.
Before GEWIN, AINSWORTH and SIMPSON, Circuit Judges.
Peter Hugo Hein petitions for review of the deportation order of the United States Immigration and Naturalization Service ordering him deported to Germany. Hein is 19 years of age and is the adopted son of Mr. and Mrs. Friedrich Gustav Hein who were German citizens and immigrated to the United States with young Hein in 1960, when petitioner was 8 years of age. Thereafter, in 1967, when petitioner was 14 years of age, Mr. and Mrs. Friedrich Gustav Hein were naturalized as United States citizens. However, petitioner was not naturalized with his adoptive parents, and under the terms of the Immigration and Nationality Act, Section 321(b), their naturalization did not confer automatic United States citizenship upon him since he was an adopted child. See 8 U.S.C. § 1432(b).
Hein is presently incarcerated in a unit of the Texas Department of Corrections for a narcotics conviction for violating Article 725(b) of the Texas Penal Code which he concedes subjects him to immediate deportation under 8 U.S.C. § 1251 unless it be denied because Section 321(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act is unconstitutional under the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Petitioner's charge of unconstitutionality of Section 321(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act which provides that automatic citizenship does not occur for an adopted child under the age of 16 years, upon the naturalization of his adoptive parents, though it would for a natural child under such circumstances (see Section 321(a) of the Act), is as we have stated based upon the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. He asserts that the differentiation between natural and adopted children is an invidious discrimination against adopted children. However, an alien has no constitutional...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Aguayo v. Christopher, 92 C 7535.
...analysis, noting the "free hand" of Congress in determining the citizenship of foreign-born persons. Id. at 887 (citing Hein v. INS, 456 F.2d 1239, 1240 (5th Cir.1972)). The Villanueva-Jurado court also cited prior Supreme Court precedent to the effect that persons born abroad of a citizen ......
-
Elias v. US Dept. of State
...of grace by Congress under Article I, § 8 of the United States Constitution.... Id., quoting Hein v. United States Immigration and Naturalization Serv. 456 F.2d 1239, 1240 (5th Cir.1972). The court went on to state that "Congress has a completely free hand in defining citizenship as it rela......
-
Geronimo v. Mukasey
...has no constitutional right to citizenship." Villanueva-Jurado v. I.N.S., 482 F.2d 886, 887 (5th Cir.1973) (quoting Hein v. I.N.S., 456 F.2d 1239, 1240 (5th Cir.1972)). "An alien `seeking admission to his country may not do so under any claim of right.'" United States v. Lopez-Vasquez, 227 ......
-
Villanueva-Jurado v. Immigration & Naturalization Serv.
...of Naturalization." See Rogers v. Bellei, 401 U.S. 815, 91 S.Ct. 1060, 28 L.Ed.2d 499 (1971). Hein v. United States Immigration and Naturalization Service, 456 F.2d 1239, 1240 (5th Cir. 1972). Moreover, we have held that "Congress has a completely free hand in defining citizenship as it rel......