Muscardin v. Brownell, No. 11757
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia) |
| Writing for the Court | EDGERTON, WILBUR K. MILLER, and FAHY, Circuit |
| Citation | 227 F.2d 31,97 US App. DC 16 |
| Parties | Mario MUSCARDIN, Appellant, v. Herbert BROWNELL, Jr., Attorney General of the United States, Appellee. Morris NEMIROFSKY, also known as Morris Newman, Appellant, v. COMMISSIONER OF IMMIGRATION and NATURALIZATION, Appellee. George TASOU, Appellant, v. Herbert BROWNELL, Jr., Attorney General of the United States, Appellee. |
| Decision Date | 13 October 1955 |
| Docket Number | No. 11757,12266,12371. |
97 US App. DC 16, 227 F.2d 31 (1955)
Mario MUSCARDIN, Appellant,
v.
Herbert BROWNELL, Jr., Attorney General of the United States, Appellee.
Morris NEMIROFSKY, also known as Morris Newman, Appellant,
v.
COMMISSIONER OF IMMIGRATION and NATURALIZATION, Appellee.
George TASOU, Appellant,
v.
Herbert BROWNELL, Jr., Attorney General of the United States, Appellee.
Nos. 11757, 12266, 12371.
United States Court of Appeals District of Columbia Circuit.
Argued April 18, 19, 1955.
Decided October 13, 1955.
Mr. Jack Wasserman, Washington, D. C., with whom Mr. Jack Hantman, New York City, was on the brief, for appellant Muscardin.
Mr. Isidor Ostroff, Philadelphia, Pa., for appellant Nemirofsky.
Mr. Jacob J. Kilimnik, Philadelphia, Pa., of the bar of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, pro hac vice, by special leave of Court, for appellant Tasou. Mr. William C. Wise, Washington, D. C., also entered an appearance for appellant Tasou.
Mr. Lewis Carroll, Asst. U. S. Atty., with whom Messrs. Leo A. Rover, U. S. Atty., and Albert E. Reitzel, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Immigration and Naturalization Service, were on the briefs, for appellees in Nos. 11757, 12266, and 12371. Mr. Robert L. Toomey, Asst. U. S. Atty., was also on the briefs for appellees in Nos. 12266 and 12371.
Before EDGERTON, WILBUR K. MILLER, and FAHY, Circuit Judges.
EDGERTON, Circuit Judge.
In each of these three cases an alien who is not under arrest asks judicial review of an administrative deportation order. The deportation orders were issued before and the complaints for review were filed after the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 took effect. 66 Stat. 163, 8 U.S.C.A. § 1101 et seq.
In No. 11757, Muscardin v. Brownell, the District Court denied a preliminary injunction on the ground that it lacked jurisdiction. It said: "the sole means of testing an order of deportation is by habeas corpus."
In No. 12371, Tasou v. Brownell, the court entered summary judgment for the defendant.
In No. 12266, Nemirofsky v. Commissioner of Immigration and Naturalization, the court dismissed the complaint, "it appearing to the Court that the complaint fails to state a cause of action". Since the court expressed, in a memorandum, the view that it lacked jurisdiction, it cannot have intended to rule on any other question.
We think the District Court had jurisdiction of these complaints.
The judgments were rendered in 1953 and 1954. On April 22, 1955, the Supreme Court determined that under the 1952 Act "there is a right of judicial review of deportation orders other than by habeas corpus"; the review provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act 5 U.S.C.A. § 1001 et seq. apply, and declaratory and injunctive relief may be had. Shaughnessy v. Pedreiro, 349 U.S. 48, 52, 75 S.Ct. 591, 594.1 The Court said it would not be in keeping with either the 1952 Act or the Administrative Procedure Act "to require a person
ordered deported to go to jail in order to...To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bunker Ramo Corp. v. United Business Forms, Inc., No. 82-2173
...the view that it lacks jurisdiction, the court thereafter does not have the power to rule on any other matter. Muscardin v. Brownell, 227 F.2d 31, 32 (D.C.Cir.1955); Arrowsmith v. United Press International, 320 F.2d 219, 221 (2d Cir.1963). Any finding made by a court when the court has det......
-
Ericksen v. Rush Presbyterian St. Luke's Medical Center, No. 1-95-3490
...713 F.2d 1272, 1279 (7th Cir.1983); Arrowsmith v. United Press International, 320 F.2d 219, 221 (2nd Cir.1963); Muscardin v. Brownell, 227 F.2d 31, 32 Rush urges that the circuit court did have the power to consider affirmative defenses in the supplementary proceeding, and therefore could c......
-
Bong Youn Choy v. Barber, No. 16159.
...U.S.App.D.C. 25, 227 F.2d 40, affirmed, 1956, 352 U.S. 180, 77 S.Ct. 252, 1 L.Ed. 2d 225; Muscardin v. Brownell, 1955, 97 U.S.App.D.C. 16, 227 F.2d 31. 2 The significant portion of this statement is as follows: "`Q. Are you now, or have you ever been a member of the Communist Party? A. I ha......
-
In re Terzich's Petition, Misc. No. 2033.
...judgment or injunctive relief. Resurrection-Talavera v. Barber, 9 Cir., 231 F.2d 524; Muscardin v. Brownell, 97 U.S.App. D.C. 16, 227 F.2d 31; Shintaro Miyagi v. Brownell, 97 U.S.App.D.C. 18, 227 F.2d 33; Fong Sen v. United States Immigration and Naturalization Service, D. C., 137 F.Supp. 2......
-
Bunker Ramo Corp. v. United Business Forms, Inc., No. 82-2173
...the view that it lacks jurisdiction, the court thereafter does not have the power to rule on any other matter. Muscardin v. Brownell, 227 F.2d 31, 32 (D.C.Cir.1955); Arrowsmith v. United Press International, 320 F.2d 219, 221 (2d Cir.1963). Any finding made by a court when the court has det......
-
Ericksen v. Rush Presbyterian St. Luke's Medical Center, No. 1-95-3490
...713 F.2d 1272, 1279 (7th Cir.1983); Arrowsmith v. United Press International, 320 F.2d 219, 221 (2nd Cir.1963); Muscardin v. Brownell, 227 F.2d 31, 32 Rush urges that the circuit court did have the power to consider affirmative defenses in the supplementary proceeding, and therefore could c......
-
Bong Youn Choy v. Barber, No. 16159.
...U.S.App.D.C. 25, 227 F.2d 40, affirmed, 1956, 352 U.S. 180, 77 S.Ct. 252, 1 L.Ed. 2d 225; Muscardin v. Brownell, 1955, 97 U.S.App.D.C. 16, 227 F.2d 31. 2 The significant portion of this statement is as follows: "`Q. Are you now, or have you ever been a member of the Communist Party? A. I ha......
-
In re Terzich's Petition, Misc. No. 2033.
...judgment or injunctive relief. Resurrection-Talavera v. Barber, 9 Cir., 231 F.2d 524; Muscardin v. Brownell, 97 U.S.App. D.C. 16, 227 F.2d 31; Shintaro Miyagi v. Brownell, 97 U.S.App.D.C. 18, 227 F.2d 33; Fong Sen v. United States Immigration and Naturalization Service, D. C., 137 F.Supp. 2......