Medalha v. Shaughnessy

Decision Date01 December 1951
Citation102 F. Supp. 950
PartiesMEDALHA v. SHAUGHNESSY.
CourtU.S. District Court — Southern District of New York

Nemeroff, Jelline, Danzig & Paley and Aaron L. Danzig, all of New York City, for petitioner.

Edward J. Shaughnessy, District Director of Immigration and Naturalization for New York Dist., New York City, Myles J. Lane, U. S. Atty. for Southern District of New York, New York City, for respondent.

SUGARMAN, District Judge.

Petitioner, an alien, entered the United States from Lisbon, Portugal, on August 10, 1947, as a seaman and was permitted to go ashore for twenty-nine days. He jumped ship and has remained here continuously since. He was, in due course, apprehended, admitted to bail and, on December 3, 1947, given a hearing by the Immigration and Naturalization Service, at which he was represented by counsel. The petitioner was there charged with being an immigrant not in possession of a valid immigration visa and not exempted from the presentation thereof. He was continued under the bond previously posted.

On June 12, 1950, the Service accorded petitioner a second hearing (apparently complying with Wong Yang Sung v. McGrath, 339 U.S. 33, 70 S.Ct. 445, 94 L.Ed. 616) at which he was represented by new counsel. In the course of the second hearing, a new charge was lodged against him, i. e., that, after admission as a seaman he remained in the United States for a longer time than permitted.

The second hearing examiner subsequently recommended the petitioner's deportation upon the ground lodged at that hearing. The petitioner having filed exceptions to the recommendation, the Commissioner of Immigration and Naturalization after consideration thereof, on April 24, 1951, ordered that the petitioner be deported on the charge lodged at the second hearing. On May 15, 1951, petitioner appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals. On June 20, 1951, the Board ordered the withdrawal of the then outstanding warrant of deportation and granted the petitioner voluntary departure within thirty days and upon the petitioner's failure to thus depart, directed that he be deported on the charge lodged at the second hearing. The petitioner not having voluntarily withdrawn within the thirty-day period, a warrant for his deportation was issued on October 12, 1951. On November 2, 1951, the surety on petitioner's bond was notified to surrender him at Ellis Island, New York, for deportation on November 21, 1951.

Availing himself of the procedure approved in U.S. ex rel. Trinler v. Carusi, 3 Cir., 1948, 166 F.2d 457, petitioner commenced the instant proceeding by filing in the office of the Clerk of this Court, on November 13, 1951, a "Petition for Review" under the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C.A. §§ 1001-1011. The substantive basis of the petition is that the evidence adduced at the second hearing was in contravention of Article V (sic — undoubtedly intended to refer to the 5th Amendment) of the Constitution of the United States, in that the petitioner's right against self incrimination was invaded. The "Petition for Review" is entitled "In the Matter of the Petition for a Review of Deportation Order of the Commissioner of Immigration and Naturalization concerning Jose Medalha, against Edward J. Shaughnessy, as District Director of Immigration and Naturalization for the New York District". It

"prays that this Court: —

"1. Review the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • De Pinho Vaz v. Shaughnessy
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York
    • May 7, 1953
    ...F. 2d 575, certiorari denied 340 U.S. 955, 71 S.Ct. 566, 95 L.Ed. 688; Podovinnikoff v. Miller, 3 Cir., 179 F.2d 937; Medalha v. Shaughnessy, D.C.S.D.N.Y., 102 F.Supp. 950; Birns v. Commissioner of Immigration and Naturalization, D.C.N.D.Ohio, 103 F.Supp. 180. See Connor v. Miller, 2 Cir., ......
  • Corona v. Landon, 15014.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of California
    • March 13, 1953
    ...219-221, this is not such proceeding. Nor can it be turned into one, the defendant not being in custody. See, Medalha v. Shaughnessey, D.C.N.Y., 1951, 102 F.Supp. 950, 951. An effective order that would help the plaintiff, no matter where he might be, would require the Commissioner to recal......
  • Pedreiro v. Shaughnessy
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit
    • July 1, 1954
    ...200 F. 2d 280; Belizaro v. Zimmerman, 3 Cir., 1952, 200 F.2d 282; Rodriguez v. Landon, 9 Cir., 1954, 212 F.2d 508; Medalha v. Shaughnessy, D.C.S.D.N.Y., 1951, 102 F.Supp. 950; Birns v. Commissioner, D. C.N.D.Ohio, E.D., 1952, 103 F.Supp. 180; Corona v. Landon, D.C.S.D.Cal., C.D., 1953, 111 ......
  • Paolo v. Garfinkel, 10804.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit
    • December 8, 1952
    ...F.Supp. 461, with Birns v. Commissioner of Immigration and Naturalization, D.C.N.D.Ohio 1952, 103 F.Supp. 180, and Medalha v. Shaughnessy, D.C. S.D.N.Y.1951, 102 F.Supp. 950. 3 See Connor v. Miller, 2 Cir., 1949, 178 F.2d 755; Birns v. Commissioner of Immigration and Naturalization and Meda......

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