Ntovas v. Ahrens, 12832.
| Decision Date | 09 May 1960 |
| Docket Number | No. 12832.,12832. |
| Citation | 276 F.2d 483 |
| Parties | Artemios NTOVAS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Edward P. AHRENS, District Director, Immigration and Naturalization Service of the United States Department of Justice, Chicago District, Defendant-Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit |
Marshall A. Patner, Chicago, Ill., for appellant.
Robert Tieken, U. S. Atty., Elmer M. Walsh, Jr., Chicago, Ill. (John Peter Lulinski, Asst. U. S. Atty., Chicago, Ill., of counsel), for appellee.
Before SCHNACKENBERG, KNOCH and CASTLE, Circuit Judges.
Pursuant to § 10 of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C.A. § 1009, Artemios Ntovas, plaintiff, filed in the district court a complaint for judicial review of deportation proceedings brought against him by Edward P. Ahrens, district director, Immigration and Naturalization Service of the United States Department of Justice, Chicago district, defendant herein, and praying for vacation of an order for his deportation. The district court dismissed the complaint and entered judgment for defendant on the pleadings. This appeal by plaintiff followed.
Plaintiff, a crewman, entered the United States at Portland, Oregon, following an inspection by an officer of the Immigration Service, which issued to him a conditional landing permit pursuant to 8 U.S.C.A. § 1282 for a period of time not exceeding 29 days. This permitted plaintiff to remain in the United States until February 17, 1957. However, plaintiff did not depart and has since remained in the United States. Defendant contends that plaintiff's stay since February 17, 1957 has been without authority. Plaintiff denies this contention and seeks to avoid the application of § 1251(a) (2), which reads:
He seeks such avoidance by the unique method of charging himself with an undisclosed fraud committed when he entered the country in that upon entry he actually intended to remain permanently. Rather than be deported for overstaying his expired permit, he asserts that in his mind he committed a fraud. He now is willing to confess this secret fraud because he believes thereby he can put himself in a position to invoke the provisions of 8 U.S.C.A. § 1251a () approved September 11, 1957, which are:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bayo v. Napolitano
...also safeguarded the government's ability to select the ground on which to remove aliens who are here illegally. See Ntovas v. Ahrens, 276 F.2d 483, 484 (7th Cir.1960) ("In the administrative proceedings the ground selected and relied upon by the government was not fraud or misrepresentatio......
-
Cabuco-Flores v. Immigration & Naturalization Service
...deportation simply by "substituting for his own convenience a ground not involved in the deportation proceedings." Ntovas v. Ahrens, 276 F.2d 483, 484 (7th Cir. 1960). See also Tsaconas v. Immigration & Naturalization Service, supra, 397 F.2d 946, 948. It avoids the constitutional question ......
-
Licea-Gomez v. Pilliod
...or this court. Contrariwise, there are cases, which while not exactly in point, do tend to the opposite conclusion. In Ntovas v. Ahrens, 7 Cir., 1960, 276 F.2d 483, the Seventh Circuit held that the plaintiff there could not substitute his own grounds for deportation over the grounds select......
-
Matter of Larochelle
...237 F.2d 927 (9th Cir., 1956)). The alien cannot dictate to the Government the charge which will be used in his case (Ntovas v. Ahrens, 276 F.2d 483 (7th Cir., 1960), cert. den. 364 U.S. Counsel contends it was error to deny his motion to terminate proceedings for the purpose of allowing re......