Lezos v. Landon, 14337.
| Decision Date | 12 July 1956 |
| Docket Number | No. 14337.,14337. |
| Citation | 235 F.2d 581 |
| Parties | Petros LEZOS, Appellant, v. Herman R. LANDON, District Director, Immigration and Naturalization Service, Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
Eugene Radding, Esther Shandler, Los Angeles, Cal., for appellant.
Laughlin E. Waters, U. S. Atty., Max F. Deutz, Andrew J. Davis, Jr., Asst. U. S. Attys., Los Angeles, Cal., for appellee.
Before STEPHENS and FEE, Circuit Judges, and TAYLOR, District Judge.
The proceeding under consideration was initiated February 11, 1954, by complaint in the District Court. That pleading prayed that defendant be enjoined from deporting plaintiff and that the order of surrender be vacated. Motion to dismiss the complaint was granted and appeal followed.
Below are matters admitted on the record. Lezos was born on the Island of Corfu in 1907. He entered the United States as a seaman on October 30, 1940, under a statute permitting a stay not to exceed twenty-nine days. He has remained here ever since. His stay after entry for temporary purposes is admitted by all to be illegal, including Lezos and his counsel.
On October 12, 1951, Lezos was arrested and charged with being in the United States in violation of law in that he remained in this country longer than permitted by statute. During the hearing on April 10, 1953, he refused to designate any country to which he desired deportation. A final order of deportation issued on August 24, 1953. Thereafter, on October 1, 1953, and upon further request of the Service, he designated Albania as the country to which he desired to be deported, although the record clearly shows he is a citizen of Greece. The motivation for this request becomes obvious when it is known that the United States does not have diplomatic relations with Albania through which contacts with that nation could be made in behalf of Lezos. Landon was advised on November 13, 1953, that "the Department of State would not request permission for the entry of the deportee into that country." The complaint alleges that Lezos began efforts himself on August 27, 1953, to have Albania receive him. But on January 29, 1954, at a proceeding held by the Service, Lezos refused to divulge what progress he had made, if any, in contacting personally the Albanian government. He also refused an invitation to request additional time for his efforts.
On the face of the complaint, there is no allegation that Lezos is not deportable. It is recited that the order for deportation has become final. Lezos states his own fruitless efforts to obtain entry into Albania. The only alleged defects in the procedure are, first, that the country to which deportation is planned by Landon is not specifically named in the order calling for the surrender of Lezos for deportation on February 17, 1954. This, it is said, deprives Lezos of a chance to importune the Attorney General to withhold deportation under § 243(h) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, passed June 27, 1952, 66 Stat. 212, 8 U.S.C.A. § 1253(h).1 But the complaint alleges on information and belief that Greece was the country designated in a warrant of deportation issued in this proceeding. There are no allegations that Lezos would suffer persecution if he were sent to Greece.
Complaint is made in the second place that Lezos was not permitted to continue indefinitely his attempts to enter Albania. The statute provides:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- U.S. v. Jones, s. 74--1466
-
Lam Man Chi v. Bouchard
...to be deported. See 8 C.F.R. § 243.1(b) as it was prior to the December 19, 1961 amendment. The chronologies set forth in Lezos v. Landon, 235 F.2d 581 (9 Cir., 1955); Ying v. Kennedy, 110 U.S.App.D.C. 247, 292 F.2d 740, 742 (1961), cert. den. 368 U.S. 914, 82 S.Ct. 193, 7 L.Ed.2d 130 (1961......
-
Gagliano v. Bernsen, 16393.
...was applied. There are, we think, cases where the Attorney General or the Commissioner is an indispensable party. See Lezos v. Landon, 9 Cir., 1956, 235 F.2d 581. If so, such a case is the one before us where the relief sought is, among other things, the restoration to a status quo presence......
-
Maccaud v. Immigration and Naturalization Service, s. 1039
...U.S.C. 1253(a). Here, more than eight months had elapsed since the Government sent its letter of February 17, 1972. See Lezos v. Landon, 235 F.2d 581, 583 (9th Cir. 1955).7 . . . The respondent shall be advised that pursuant to section 243(h) of the Act he may apply for temporary withholdin......