Kokoris v. Johnson, 6379.
| Decision Date | 03 April 1952 |
| Docket Number | No. 6379.,6379. |
| Parties | KOKORIS et al. v. JOHNSON et al. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit |
Burt M. Morewitz and J. L. Morewitz, Newport News, Va. (Morewitz & Morewitz, Newport News, Va., on brief), for appellants.
Albert E. Reitzel, Asst. Gen. Counsel, U. S. Immigration and Naturalization Service, Washington, D. C. (A. Carter Whitehead, U. S. Atty., Richmond, Va., and Charles R. Dalton, Jr., Asst. U. S. Atty., Norfolk, Va., on brief), for appellees.
Before PARKER, Chief Judge, and SOPER and DOBIE, Circuit Judges.
This is another appeal in the cases of the five foreign seamen who were before us in Kokoris v. Johnson, 4 Cir., 180 F.2d 355. The order of the District Court was reversed on that appeal because we were of opinion that the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C.A. § 1001 et seq., had not been complied with as required by the decision of the Supreme Court in Wong Yang Sung v. McGrath, 339 U.S. 33, 70 S.Ct. 445, 94 L.Ed. 616, and the cases were remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with the decision in that case. Upon the remand, the District Judge refused to pass upon the validity of the deportation orders against the appellant seamen but allowed the orders to stand while dismissing as moot the proceedings brought to have them declared void because the seamen had either departed or been deported from the country. We think that the seamen are entitled to have the validity of the orders of deportation determined in the proceedings instituted for that purpose, since these orders may result in their being prosecuted for crime if they should hereafter attempt to come into the country. It should be noted in this connection that we are dealing not with habeas corpus proceedings, where presence of the person deprived of liberty is essential to the court's jurisdiction, but with proceedings questioning the validity of administrative orders and asking that they be enjoined or set aside. We think that such proceedings are not rendered moot merely because petitioners are not within the country and that they are entitled to have the orders, which affect their rights and status, vacated or declared void if violative of the provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act. The order appealed from will accordingly be reversed and the case will be remanded with direction to pass upon the validity of the deportation orders.
Reversed and remanded with directions.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Heikkila v. Barber
...in a similar case that deportation did not deprive the court of its jurisdiction to pass on the merits of controversy. Kokoris v. Johnson, 4 Cir., 1952, 195 F.2d 518. In addition, it is a matter of record that the appeal to the Ninth Circuit in Resurreccion-Talavera v. Barber, 1956, 231 F.2......
-
LESBIAN/GAY FREEDOM DAY COM., INC. v. USINS
...the Administrative Procedure Act, see, e.g., Brownell v. Tom We Shung, 352 U.S. 180, 77 S.Ct. 252, 1 L.Ed.2d 225 (1956); Kokoris v. Johnson, 195 F.2d 518 (4th Cir. 1952); Estrada v. Ahrens, 296 F.2d 690 (5th Cir. 1961), or the situation where the alien had already been ordered deported or e......
-
Constructores Civiles de Centroamerica, SA v. Hannah
...nature of the proceeding the presence of the person deprived of liberty is essential to the court's jurisdiction. See Kokoris v. Johnson, 195 F.2d 518, 519 (4th Cir. 1952). There are, however, a series of decisions which hold that non-resident aliens may maintain suit where the court has a ......
-
Estrada v. Ahrens
...the validity of administrative action there is no necessary reason to produce the plaintiff in person in court. In Kokoris v. Johnson, 4 Cir., 1952, 195 F.2d 518, 519, five foreign seamen brought a declaratory action under the Administrative Procedure Act for review of agency action and for......