Rizzi v. Murff

CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit)
Writing for the CourtFREDERICK van PELT BRYAN
Citation171 F. Supp. 362
PartiesGiuseppe RIZZI, Plaintiff, v. John L. MURFF, as District Director of Immigration and Naturalization for the District of New York, J. M. Swing, as Commissioner of Immigration and Naturalization, William P. Rogers, as Attorney General of the United States, Defendants.
Decision Date16 March 1959

171 F. Supp. 362

Giuseppe RIZZI, Plaintiff,
v.
John L. MURFF, as District Director of Immigration and Naturalization for the District of New York, J. M. Swing, as Commissioner of Immigration and Naturalization, William P. Rogers, as Attorney General of the United States, Defendants.

United States District Court S. D. New York.

March 16, 1959.


171 F. Supp. 363
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
171 F. Supp. 364
Caputi & Caputi, New York City, for plaintiff, Robert R. Caputi, Sebastian P. Caputi, New York City, of counsel

Paul W. Williams, U. S. Atty. for the Southern Dist. of New York, New York City, for defendants, Roy Babitt, Sp. Asst. U. S. Atty., New York City, of counsel.

FREDERICK van PELT BRYAN, District Judge.

Plaintiff Rizzi is an alien against whom an order of deportation is outstanding. In this action he seeks judicial review, pursuant to Section 10 of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U. S.C.A. § 1009, of an order denying him the privilege of voluntary departure and directing his deportation, and a judgment, pursuant to the Declaratory Judgments Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201, that the order is illegal and void.

Rizzi is a native and citizen of Italy who entered the United States on November 14, 1956 as a non-immigrant crewman on temporary shore leave not to exceed twenty-nine days. He remained in this country when his shore leave expired without permission or authority.

On April 18, 1958 he was arrested by the immigration authorities and an order to show cause and notice of hearing in deportation proceedings was served upon him. A deportation hearing was held before a special inquiry officer, pursuant to 8 U.S.C.A. § 1252 and 8 C.F.R. § 242, at which Rizzi, without conceding deportability, made application for leave to depart voluntarily in order that he might reenter without complying with the more onerous conditions applicable to re-entry after deportation. After a full hearing the special inquiry officer found that Rizzi was illegally in this country and therefore deportable, as he plainly was on the undisputed facts, but that he was eligible for voluntary departure under 8 U.S.C.A. § 1254. However, in the exercise of his discretion, the special inquiry officer denied Rizzi the privilege of voluntary departure and ordered him deported.

Rizzi appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals from the order of the special inquiry officer denying him voluntary departure and directing his deportation. The Board found that Rizzi was deportable and that since he had been in the United States for less than five years, under 8 C.F.R. § 242.21(a) there was no appeal from the order of the special inquiry officer denying voluntary departure as a matter of administrative discretion. However, Rizzi's connsel urged upon the Board that it consider the issue of voluntary departure upon its own certification, pursuant to C.F.R. § 6.1(c). On this question the Board "carefully considered the issue of discretionary relief" and held:

"* * * We agree with the special inquiry officer that under the
171 F. Supp. 365
circumstances here presented, notwithstanding respondent's family ties in the United States, voluntary departure is not warranted as a matter of administrative discretion. We find no basis upon which to certify the case for reconsideration of the issue of discretionary relief. The appeal in deportation proceedings will be dismissed."

Rizzi thereafter was released upon an appearance bond and brought the present action.

Rizzi concedes that he is deportable. He contends, however, that the order denying him voluntary departure and ordering his deportation is illegal and should be set aside on the grounds (1) that the regulation of the Attorney General which makes final and non-appealable a decision of a special inquiry officer which denies as a matter of discretion an application for voluntary departure by an alien statutorily eligible therefor (8 C.F.R. § 242.21(a)) deprived him of due process of law and is unconstitutional and void, and (2) that the special inquiry officer abused his discretion in denying the application for voluntary departure.

Rizzi has moved before me to stay his surrender and deportation until the final determination of this action. The defendants have cross-moved (a) to dismiss the action as to defendant Swing as Commissioner of Immigration, and Rogers as Attorney General, pursuant to Rule 12(b), F.R.Civ.P., 28 U.S.C., on the ground that venue has been improperly laid against them in this district, and that neither has been served with process, is subject to such service, or has consented to such service in this district, and (b) on behalf of defendant Murff for summary judgment, pursuant to Rule 56, F.R.Civ.P. It is the cross-motions which raise the material issues presented for decision here.

The cross-motion to dismiss as to defendants Swing and Rogers is plainly well taken, as plaintiff seems to concede. The Commissioner of Immigration and the Attorney General have their official residences in Washington, D. C. Neither of them have been served personally within this district, nor have they consented to be sued here. There is no statutory authority for suit against them outside the district of their official residence, the District of Columbia. Neither of these defendants is before the court and the court has no jurisdiction over them. The motion to dismiss as to them is granted. See Connor v. Miller, 2 Cir., 178 F.2d 755; Rodriguez v. Landon, 9 Cir., 212 F.2d 508; Blackmar v. Guerre, 342 U.S. 512, 72 S.Ct. 410, 96 L.Ed. 534.

This leaves for determination the motion for summary judgment in favor of defendant Murff. That motion is based on the administrative record which is before me. No material facts are added by the affidavits submitted by the parties.

Rizzi raises no question as to the validity of the statute and regulations under which deportation proceedings are held before a special inquiry officer nor as to the procedure prescribed for such hearing. 8 U.S.C.A. § 1252(b), 8 C.F.R. Part 242. Nor does he question the power of the Attorney General to delegate to the special inquiry officer at such a hearing the discretion to determine whether or not the privilege of voluntary departure should be granted.

However, he attacks the regulation of the Attorney General which provides that no appeal lies from a decision of a special inquiry officer denying the application for voluntary departure in lieu of deportation of a statutorily eligible alien who has been in the United States for less than five years. 8 C.F.R. § 242.21(a).1

Rizzi's argument seems to be that the denial of the right to have the decision of the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 practice notes
  • Gomez-Arauz v. McNary, CIV 90-151-R.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 10th Circuit. Western District of Oklahoma
    • August 15, 1990
    ...v. Pilliod, 358 F.Supp. 542 (N.D.Ill.1973); Golabek v. Regional Manpower Administration, 329 F.Supp. 892 (E.D.Pa.1971); Rizzi v. Murff, 171 F.Supp. 362 In this case, it appears that the District Director's decision to deny the Plaintiff's request for employment authorization was based upon ......
  • Fassilis v. Esperdy
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. Southern District of New York
    • March 2, 1961
    ...reviewing court is severely limited in its examination of the exercise of that discretion. In the case of Rizzi v. Murff, D.C.S.D. N.Y., 171 F.Supp. 362, 367, Judge Bryan "* * * Judicial review of administrative action in immigration matters taken by the Attorney General in the exercise of ......
  • Baez-Geigel v. American Foreign Steamship Corp.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. Southern District of New York
    • May 14, 1959
    ...on an examination before trial on August 5, 1958. There is thus posed the question whether the "journey's account" statute11 saves him. 171 F. Supp. 362 Obviously it does not because, by its very terms, an action "terminated * * * by a voluntary discontinuance" is without its reach. Were th......
  • United States v. Esperdy
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. Southern District of New York
    • September 22, 1960
    ...United States ex rel. Hintopoulos v. Shaughnessy, 1957, 353 U.S. 72, 77 S.Ct. 618, 1 L.Ed.2d 652; Rizzi v. Murff, D.C.S.D.N.Y.1959, 171 F.Supp. 362, 367 and cases there An examination of the transcript of the hearing held by the Immigration Service on June 28, 1960 discloses an adequate bas......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
6 cases
  • Gomez-Arauz v. McNary, No. CIV 90-151-R.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 10th Circuit. Western District of Oklahoma
    • August 15, 1990
    ...v. Pilliod, 358 F.Supp. 542 (N.D.Ill.1973); Golabek v. Regional Manpower Administration, 329 F.Supp. 892 (E.D.Pa.1971); Rizzi v. Murff, 171 F.Supp. 362 In this case, it appears that the District Director's decision to deny the Plaintiff's request for employment authorization was based upon ......
  • Fassilis v. Esperdy
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit)
    • March 2, 1961
    ...reviewing court is severely limited in its examination of the exercise of that discretion. In the case of Rizzi v. Murff, D.C.S.D. N.Y., 171 F.Supp. 362, 367, Judge Bryan "* * * Judicial review of administrative action in immigration matters taken by the Attorney General in the exercise of ......
  • Baez-Geigel v. American Foreign Steamship Corp.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit)
    • May 14, 1959
    ...on an examination before trial on August 5, 1958. There is thus posed the question whether the "journey's account" statute11 saves him. 171 F. Supp. 362 Obviously it does not because, by its very terms, an action "terminated * * * by a voluntary discontinuance" is without its reach. Were th......
  • United States v. Esperdy
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. Southern District of New York
    • September 22, 1960
    ...United States ex rel. Hintopoulos v. Shaughnessy, 1957, 353 U.S. 72, 77 S.Ct. 618, 1 L.Ed.2d 652; Rizzi v. Murff, D.C.S.D.N.Y.1959, 171 F.Supp. 362, 367 and cases there An examination of the transcript of the hearing held by the Immigration Service on June 28, 1960 discloses an adequate bas......
  • 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