Navarrette-Navarrette v. Landon, No. 14343.

CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)
Writing for the CourtSTEPHENS and FEE, Circuit , and WIIG
Citation223 F.2d 234
Docket NumberNo. 14343.
Decision Date04 May 1955
PartiesVicente NAVARRETTE-NAVARRETTE, Appellant, v. H. R. LANDON, District Director of Immigration and Naturalization, Department of Justice, Appellee.

223 F.2d 234 (1955)

Vicente NAVARRETTE-NAVARRETTE, Appellant,
v.
H. R. LANDON, District Director of Immigration and Naturalization, Department of Justice, Appellee.

No. 14343.

United States Court of Appeals Ninth Circuit.

May 4, 1955.


223 F.2d 235

David C. Marcus, Los Angeles, for appellant.

Laughlin E. Waters, U. S. Attorney, James R. Dooley, Max F. Deutz, Robert K. Grean, Asst. U. S. Attys., Los Angeles, for appellee.

Before STEPHENS and FEE, Circuit Judges, and WIIG, District Judge.

WIIG, District Judge.

Vicente Navarrette-Navarrette appeals from a judgment of the United States District Court discharging his writ of habeas corpus and ordering him remanded to custody under a final order of deportation. Appellee, Landon, is the District Director of the Immigration and Naturalization Service.

Appellant is a native and citizen of Mexico who entered this country for permanent residence in 1920 and has since resided in Southern California. The events leading to the deportation order are noted below.

In 1949, appellant was offered fifty dollars by Juan Ramirez to assist the latter's alien brother to enter the United States. Following this, appellant went from his home in California to Tijuana, Mexico, on July 16, 1949, where he contacted the alien brother, along with three other aliens. In the ensuing conversation, appellant informed the aliens that he could not assist them across the international line, but that if they got across he would drive them to their destination in Corona, California. The four aliens illegally entered the United States without inspection and met appellant in San Ysidro, California, just north of the border. While in appellant's car, the group was apprehended by border patrol officers.

223 F.2d 236

Criminal proceedings were instituted against appellant, and on October 29, 1949, he was, on his plea of guilty, convicted of illegally bringing aliens into the United States, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 144.1 He was sentenced to serve a term of imprisonment of three months and to pay a fine of $100.

On December 29, 1949, a warrant of arrest in deportation issued against appellant and hearings were held on January 24 and February 12, 1952, at which he was represented by counsel. On April 23, 1952, the hearing officer recommended that appellant be deported from the United States pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 155 (b)*, § 19(b) of the Act of February 5, 1917, as amended by § 20 of the Act of June 28, 1940, 54 Stat. 671, which provides in part:

"(b) Any alien of any of the classes specified in this subsection, in addition to aliens who are deportable under other provisions of law, shall, upon warrant of the Attorney General, be taken into custody and deported:
"(1) Any alien who, at any time within five years after entry, shall have, knowingly and for gain, encouraged, induced, assisted, abetted, or aided any other alien to enter or to try to enter the United States in violation of law."

After exhausting his administrative remedies, appellant on December 7, 1953, filed his petition for a writ of habeas corpus challenging the legality of his detention under the warrant of deportation. He alleged that the finding of deportability was not based upon reasonable, substantial and probative evidence,2 and that the hearings were unfair and in violation of his constitutional rights. The writ issued and appellee made his return. On March 15, 1954, the district court ordered the writ discharged and appellant remanded to custody. It is from this judgment that the appeal is taken.

Appellant's 1949 conviction for violation of 8 U.S.C. § 144 established that he knowingly encouraged, induced, assisted, abetted, or aided another alien...

To continue reading

Request your trial
22 practice notes
  • Gutierrez v. Holder, No. 06–71680.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)
    • November 7, 2011
    ...(“[T]he only limitation upon its procedure [is] that a hearing, though summary, must be fair.”) (quoting Navarrette–Navarrette v. Landon, 223 F.2d 234, 237 (9th Cir.1955)). An alien bears the burden of proving the alleged violation prejudiced his or her interests. See United States v. Cerda......
  • Matter of D-R
    • United States
    • U.S. Board of Tax Appeals
    • April 6, 2011
    ...of DeVera, 16 I&N Dec. at 268; see also section 240(b)(1) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(1) (2006); Navarrette-Navarrette v. Landon, 223 F.2d 234, 237 (9th Cir. 1955) (stating that "administrative tribunals may receive evidence which a court would regard as legally insufficient").9 The res......
  • Yiannopoulos v. Robinson, No. 11816.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (7th Circuit)
    • August 23, 1957
    ...is not reversible error, if there is substantial evidence to sustain the decision of the agency. Navarrette-Navarrette v. Landon, 9 Cir., 223 F.2d 234; United States ex rel. Impostato v. O'Rourke, 8 Cir., 211 F.2d 609; Sisto v. Civil Aeronautics Board, 86 U.S.App. D.C. 31, 179 F.2d 47; Jung......
  • United States v. Witkovich, No. 55 Cr 607.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois
    • May 10, 1956
    ...v. Vander Jagt, D.C.W.D.Mich.1955, 135 F.Supp. 676, and hearsay evidence may be admitted. Navarrette-Navarrette v. Landon, 9 Cir., 1955, 223 F.2d 234. 140 F. Supp. 820 There is accordingly no justification for allowing a deportation order to accomplish more than its intended purpose. It est......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
22 cases
  • Gutierrez v. Holder, No. 06–71680.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)
    • November 7, 2011
    ...(“[T]he only limitation upon its procedure [is] that a hearing, though summary, must be fair.”) (quoting Navarrette–Navarrette v. Landon, 223 F.2d 234, 237 (9th Cir.1955)). An alien bears the burden of proving the alleged violation prejudiced his or her interests. See United States v. Cerda......
  • Matter of D-R
    • United States
    • U.S. Board of Tax Appeals
    • April 6, 2011
    ...of DeVera, 16 I&N Dec. at 268; see also section 240(b)(1) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(1) (2006); Navarrette-Navarrette v. Landon, 223 F.2d 234, 237 (9th Cir. 1955) (stating that "administrative tribunals may receive evidence which a court would regard as legally insufficient").9 The res......
  • Yiannopoulos v. Robinson, No. 11816.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (7th Circuit)
    • August 23, 1957
    ...is not reversible error, if there is substantial evidence to sustain the decision of the agency. Navarrette-Navarrette v. Landon, 9 Cir., 223 F.2d 234; United States ex rel. Impostato v. O'Rourke, 8 Cir., 211 F.2d 609; Sisto v. Civil Aeronautics Board, 86 U.S.App. D.C. 31, 179 F.2d 47; Jung......
  • United States v. Witkovich, No. 55 Cr 607.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois
    • May 10, 1956
    ...v. Vander Jagt, D.C.W.D.Mich.1955, 135 F.Supp. 676, and hearsay evidence may be admitted. Navarrette-Navarrette v. Landon, 9 Cir., 1955, 223 F.2d 234. 140 F. Supp. 820 There is accordingly no justification for allowing a deportation order to accomplish more than its intended purpose. It est......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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