Prince v. COMMISSIONER OF IMMIGRATION & NATURALIZATION, Civ. A. No. 25968.

CourtU.S. District Court — Northern District of Ohio
Writing for the CourtDon C. Miller, U. S. Atty., Cleveland, Ohio, for defendants
Citation87 F. Supp. 53
PartiesPRINCE v. COMMISSIONER OF IMMIGRATION & NATURALIZATION et al.
Docket NumberCiv. A. No. 25968.
Decision Date29 September 1949

87 F. Supp. 53

PRINCE
v.
COMMISSIONER OF IMMIGRATION & NATURALIZATION et al.

Civ. A. No. 25968.

United States District Court N. D. Ohio, E. D.

September 29, 1949.


87 F. Supp. 54

Henry C. Lavine, Cleveland, Ohio, for plaintiff.

Don C. Miller, U. S. Atty., Cleveland, Ohio, for defendants.

WILKIN, District Judge.

Petitioner brings this action under Title 5 U.S.C.A. § 1001 et seq., Administrative Procedure Act, to review the acts of the Commissioner of Immigration and the Attorney General in issuing warrant and order of deportation.

The United States filed answer to the petition, and also affidavit of Floyd E. Ault, Officer in Charge of Immigration and Naturalization, Cleveland Office, and on the same day filed a motion to dismiss the action or, in the alternative, for an order granting summary judgment.

Petitioner was brought to this country from Italy at the age of two years; in 1921 he was convicted of bank robbery in Buffalo and served eight years of a twenty year sentence, having been released on parole for the last twelve years of the sentence; he was arrested in 1941 to be subjected to deportation proceedings on the ground that he was managing a house of prostitution and sharing in the earnings of prostitutes. At the deportation hearing petitioner stated, under oath, that he and his wife had left the United States in 1934 or 1935 by entering Canada at Niagara Falls and re-entering the country about an hour and a half later. At a later hearing petitioner stated that he had been mistaken in his earlier testimony and that he had not gone to Canada but to Goat Island, which is within the United States. Petitioner's wife corroborated his later testimony. Thereafter the Immigration authorities sought to deport petitioner on the ground that he had been convicted of a felony prior to his entry into this country, i. e., upon his return from Canada in 1934 or 1935. 8 U.S.C.A. § 155(a) provides that aliens entering this country who have criminal records may be deported.

Petitioner contends that the hearings, upon which was based the order of deportation, "were not conducted in accordance with the provisions of the Administrative Law and Procedure Act of 1946" (Petition, par. 10), and asks this court to review the warrant, hearing, findings and order of deportation and to find that the deportation warrant was illegally issued and is null and void. He also claims that the order was entered contrary to the facts and that the hearings were not in accord with due process.

At the hearing in this court, counsel for petitioner stated: "The only question here, your Honor, is whether the Administrative Procedure Act applies or it doesn't. If it doesn't apply we're out so far as our petition is concerned, no question about it, the motion should be granted."

Until the enactment of the Administrative Procedure Act of 1946 it was clear that habeas corpus was the only procedure by which deportation proceedings could be reviewed. Imperiale v. Perkins, 62 App. D.C. 279, 65 F.2d 805; Kabadian v. Doak, 62 App.D.C. 114, 65 F.2d 202; Sibray v. U. S., 3 Cir., 185 F. 401; Azzollini v. Watkins, 2 Cir., 172...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 practice notes
  • Prince v. COMMISSIONER OF IMMIGRATION AND NAT., No. 11114.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (6th Circuit)
    • November 17, 1950
    ...that such a review could only be had by a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The court, accordingly, dismissed appellant's petition. 87 F.Supp. 53. We are of the opinion that a person against whom a deportation order has been issued is entitled to judicial review after the issuance of su......
  • In re Cartellone, No. 33074.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 6th Circuit. United States District Court of Northern District of Ohio
    • February 7, 1957
    ...Court on the ground that the Administrative Procedure Act was inapplicable. Prince v. Commissioner of Immigration & Naturalization, D.C., 87 F.Supp. 53. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the order of deportation was subject to judicial review under the provisions of said Act. 6 Ci......
  • Birns v. Commissioner of Immigration and Naturalization, Civ. No. 28108
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 6th Circuit. United States District Court of Northern District of Ohio
    • February 13, 1952
    ...No. 26084, above, it was stipulated by the parties that the decision in Prince v. Commissioner of Immigration and Naturalization, D.C., 87 F.Supp. 53, "would be applicable and determinative as to the applicability of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C.A. § 1001 et seq.,". In the Prin......
3 cases
  • Prince v. COMMISSIONER OF IMMIGRATION AND NAT., No. 11114.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (6th Circuit)
    • November 17, 1950
    ...that such a review could only be had by a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The court, accordingly, dismissed appellant's petition. 87 F.Supp. 53. We are of the opinion that a person against whom a deportation order has been issued is entitled to judicial review after the issuance of su......
  • In re Cartellone, No. 33074.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 6th Circuit. United States District Court of Northern District of Ohio
    • February 7, 1957
    ...Court on the ground that the Administrative Procedure Act was inapplicable. Prince v. Commissioner of Immigration & Naturalization, D.C., 87 F.Supp. 53. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the order of deportation was subject to judicial review under the provisions of said Act. 6 Ci......
  • Birns v. Commissioner of Immigration and Naturalization, Civ. No. 28108
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 6th Circuit. United States District Court of Northern District of Ohio
    • February 13, 1952
    ...No. 26084, above, it was stipulated by the parties that the decision in Prince v. Commissioner of Immigration and Naturalization, D.C., 87 F.Supp. 53, "would be applicable and determinative as to the applicability of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C.A. § 1001 et seq.,". In the Prin......

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