Lattig v. Pilliod
| Decision Date | 26 April 1961 |
| Docket Number | No. 13100.,13100. |
| Citation | 289 F.2d 478 |
| Parties | Charles Helmut LATTIG, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Alva L. PILLIOD, District Director of Immigration and Naturalization, Chicago, Illinois, Defendant-Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit |
Raymond V. Najarian, Wilmette, Ill., for appellant.
James P. O'Brien, U. S. Atty., Robert N. Caffarelli, Asst. U. S. Atty., Chicago, Ill., R. Tieken, U. S. Atty., Chicago, Ill., John Peter Lulinski, Asst. U. S. Atty., Chicago, Ill., of counsel, for appellee.
Before HASTINGS, Chief Judge, and SCHNACKENBERG and CASTLE, Circuit Judges.
This action was instituted on or about the 13th day of June, 1957, upon a warrant of arrest which was served upon plaintiff-appellant, charging him with being an alien illegally in the United States and subject to deportation pursuant to the Immigration and Nationality Act, section 241(a) (4) (8 U.S.C.A. § 1251(a) (4) on two charges: (1) that plaintiff was excludable at the time of entry because he admitted committing a crime involving moral turpitude prior to entry; and, (2) excludable at time of entry because he was convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude prior to entry.
A hearing was held before a special inquiry officer who, found as proven facts that plaintiff had left this country on or about November 15, 1952 and that he committed a crime involving moral turpitude prior to entry. He found the charge of conviction of a crime prior to entry as not proved. Plaintiff was ordered deported on the first charge. This order was appealed to the Board of Appeals where the finding and order were affirmed. The United States District Court on May 18, 1960 dismissed plaintiff's petition for review under the Administrative Procedure Act, Section 1001 et seq., 5 U.S.C.A., and entered judgment for the defendant.
This appeal is from the judgment of the United States District Court dismissing plaintiff's petition. It is contended that the order of deportation is illegal and void for the following reasons: (1) it is contrary to the evidence; (2) the findings and order are not supported by substantial, reliable, sufficient and probative evidence; (3) the findings and order are founded on irrelevant and immaterial evidence; and (4) the dismissal of the appeal by the Board of Immigration Appeals is also void for these same reasons.
The hearing officer found that plaintiff did not acquire United States citizenship subsequent to his birth in Germany and that he was therefore an alien; and that plaintiff admitted that he was convicted of the crime of first degree burglary in August 1952. Plaintiff's challenge to the evidence is directed to the finding of the hearing officer that "on or about November 15, 1952" the plaintiff last entered the United States at Nogales, Arizona. Such finding, and all other findings of fact must be supported by substantial evidence. Briefly, substantial evidence means evidence that has relevant probative force and which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. It does not include the idea of the "weight of the evidence".
During the hearing a sworn statement bearing plaintiff's signature was admitted into evidence over the objection of the plaintiff that it had no probative value, was hearsay, and was not the best evidence because the plaintiff was present at the hearing and was available for questioning. Plaintiff admitted that he had signed and initialed such statement. Such...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Chalfant v. Wilmington Institute
...court but need only scrutinize the record to ascertain if it affords some reasonable basis for the result achieved. Lattig v. Pilliod, 289 F.2d 478 (7th Cir., 1961). "It is not our function to hold a trial de novo in which the whole controversy begins anew and in which every disputed factua......
-
Gamboa-Garibay v. I.N.S.
...instance, to accord great weight to the IJ's opinion that the testimony in support of Gamboa was not credible. 4 See Lattig v. Pilliod, 289 F.2d 478, 480 (7th Cir.1961) ("The issue of credibility is solely the function of the hearing officer and not reviewable by the court."); Chun v. INS, ......
-
Pinto-Vidal v. Attorney General of US
...(1971) (quoting Consolidated Edison Co. v. NLRB, 305 U.S. 197, 229, 59 S.Ct. 206, 217, 83 L.Ed. 126 (1938)); see also Lattig v. Pilliod, 289 F.2d 478, 480 (CA7 1961). The courts "are not permitted to make an independent inquiry into the facts and try the issues de novo." Ahn v. District Dir......
-
Jung v. I.N.S.
...to judgments about demeanor because the IJ is best situated to evaluate whether the witness is telling the truth. Lattig v. Pilliod, 289 F.2d 478, 480 (7th Cir.1961). For that reason, we refuse to "speculate" on a witness's credibility. Kulle v. INS, 825 F.2d 1188, 1193 (7th Cir.1987), cert......