Hiroichi v. Brownell, 12894.

Decision Date28 June 1956
Docket NumberNo. 12894.,12894.
PartiesHIROICHI and Tsugino HAMASAKI, Appellants, v. Herbert BROWNELL, Jr., Attorney General of the United States, Appellee.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit

Mr. David Carliner, Washington, D. C., with whom Messrs, Jack Wasserman and Edward J. Ennis, Washington, D. C., were on the brief, for appellants.

Mr. John W. Kern, III, Asst. U. S. Atty. for appellee. Messrs. Leo A. Rover, U. S. Atty. at the time record was filed, Lewis Carroll, Robert L. Toomey and Carl W. Belcher, Asst. U. S. Attys., were on the brief for appellee. Mr. Oliver Gasch, U. S. Atty., also entered an appearance for appellee.

Before WASHINGTON, DANAHER and BASTIAN, Circuit Judges.

BASTIAN, Circuit Judge.

This is an appeal from a judgment of the District Court dismissing appellants' (plaintiffs') complaint. Appellants, husband and wife, are natives of Japan who, without visas, last entered the United States in April of 1929. The Board of Immigration Appeals, in its order dated January 9, 1953, directed that appellants depart from this country voluntarily without expense to the Government and that, if they did not so depart, the privilege of voluntary departure shall be withdrawn and appellants deported pursuant to law.

The complaint in the District Court attacks the action of the Attorney General in denying suspension of deportation. As disclosed by the pre-trial memorandum, appellants contend that the order of deportation is null and void upon the grounds (1) that their deportation is arbitrary and an abuse of discretion, considering their good moral character, their residence here of twenty-five years, and the fact that they have five American-born children; and (2) that their deportation hearing was unfair by reason of the consideration given to confidential information.

The record herein indicates that the deportation proceedings were commenced on May 16, 1945. Hearings were resumed on September 29, 1949. The delay was due, in part, to the extensive investigation by the Government which eventually disclosed perjured testimony given by the appellants during the first hearings. This perjury, which was not denied by appellants, was committed during the hearing on May 16, 1945, before the Immigration and Naturalization Service. The Hearing Officer, finding that appellants had not been persons of good moral character, due to false statements made by them concerning their true identities, ruled that appellants were subject to deportation on the grounds that they are aliens ineligible for citizenship and not entitled to enter the United States, and, further, that they are ineligible for suspension of deportation.

An appeal was taken and, on April 16, 1951, the Acting Assistant Commissioner, Adjudications Division, ordered that appellants' applications for suspension of deportation be denied, and stated:

"Both applicants have admitted the commission of perjury in connection with statements made during a hearing before this Service on May 16, 1945. At that time, the female applicant testified falsely under oath that she had entered the United States prior to 1924; that she resided in the United States during a period of time when she was in fact absent from the United States; and that certain exhibits in the government\'s possession did not relate to her, when in fact they did relate to her. The record reveals that the alien voluntarily supplied the correct information at a hearing on January 19, 1950. She then stated that she had made the false statements in 1945 during the course of a hearing upon a warrant of arrest issued in her case; because she then was afraid she would be deported to Japan during the war and she did not wish to be separated from her children; and that she regrets having made the false statement.
"The male applicant has admitted the commission of perjury on May 16, 1945, when he stated to an officer of this Service at a deportation hearing held on a warrant issued in his case, that his last entry was in 1920; that he resided in the United States during a period of time when he was in fact, absent from the United States; that certain exhibits in the government\'s possession did not relate to him, when in fact they did relate to him.
"On January 19, 1950, the male applicant voluntarily gave the correct information concerning the date of his last entry; his residence in the United States; and the fact that the exhibits in question did refer to him. The alien stated that he regretted having made a false statement; but the statements were made at a time when he was very much afraid that he might be deported to Japan during the war as an enemy alien, and that he had great fear of separation from his children and his wife; that he did not wish to be deported to Japan as an enemy alien during the war; and that he feared there might be some danger to him if he were deported to Japan. * * *"

Thereafter, on October 15, 1951, in denying...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 cases
  • Petition of Moy Wing Yin
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York
    • November 7, 1958
    ...note 3 supra. 13 Cf. Tandaric v. Robinson, supra; Alexiou v. Rogers, 1958, 103 U.S.App.D.C. 79, 254 F.2d 782; Hiroichi Hamasaki v. Brownell, 1956, 98 U.S.App.D.C. 309, 235 F.2d 536. 14 See "Whom We Shall Welcome", Report of the President's Commission on Immigration and Naturalization, pp. 1......
  • Boudin v. Dulles, 13130
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit
    • June 28, 1956

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