Sleddens v. Shaughnessy
| Decision Date | 27 October 1949 |
| Docket Number | No. 92,Docket 21461.,92 |
| Citation | 177 F.2d 363 |
| Parties | SLEDDENS v. SHAUGHNESSY. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit |
Vincent J. Cuti, New York City, attorney and counsel for Henricus F. J. Sleddens, relator-appellant.
John F. X. McGohey, United States Attorney, New York City, for Edward J. Shaughnessy, Acting District Director, respondent-appellee; William J. Sexton, Assistant United States Attorney, Louis Steinberg, District Counsel, and Lester Friedman, Attorney, Immigration & Naturalization Service, New York City, of counsel.
Before AUGUSTUS N. HAND, CHASE, and FRANK, Circuit Judges.
The relator Sleddens entered the United States on January 2, 1946, at the Port of New York as a visitor on business for six months. He was accompanied by his wife and two year old child. A second child was born to the couple on June 25, 1946. An extension of the right of Sleddens and his family to remain in the country was granted for a further period which expired June 30, 1947. Upon the expiration of the extension an immigration warrant of arrest was issued charging the relator with a violation of the Immigration Act of 1924, 8 U.S.C.A. § 201 et seq., on two grounds:
(1) That he had remained in the United States for a longer time than permitted under the Act, and
(2) That at the time of entry he was an immigrant not in possession of a valid immigration visa.
As a result of proceedings before the immigration authorities, the relator was ordered deported upon the second charge that he had entered the United States as an immigrant without an immigration visa. The first charge, that he had overstayed his leave as a visitor, was determined against the Department of Immigration, doubtless because deportation on the ground of overstaying his leave as a visitor was inconsistent with the other charge that the relator was a quota immigrant not possessing a visa. The finding that the relator was a quota immigrant who entered the country without a visa depended upon a proper resolution of the facts of the case and inferences derivable therefrom. In our opinion the evidence justified the inferences drawn by the immigration authorities.
The relator first applied for an immigration visa. He was told, in substance, that there was such an accumulation of applications for immigration visas that he could not obtain one inside of three or four years. He sought to come to America to establish a business of selling...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gosschalk v. Gosschalk, A--9
...support to a conclusion that Gosschalk should not be regarded as a person possessed of a bona fide domicile here. In Sleddens v. Shaughnessy, 177 F.2d 363 (2 Cir., 1949), it appeared that Sleddens entered the United States with his family as a visitor on business and was given a visitor's p......
-
United States v. Esperdy
...which vitiates his landing permit. United States ex rel. Tsevdos v. Reimer, 2 Cir., 1940, 108 F.2d 860. Cf., Sleddens v. Shaughnessy, 2 Cir., 1949, 177 F.2d 363. 8 U.S.C.A. § 1282(b). The undisputed facts show, however, that at the time he obtained his permit, relator's intentions with resp......
-
Mastrapasqua v. Shaughnessy
...876, 68 S.Ct. 904, 92 L.Ed. 1152; United States ex rel. Walther v. District Director, 2 Cir., 175 F.2d 693; United States ex rel. Sleddens v. Shaughnessy, 2 Cir., 177 F.2d 363. In this instance, the appellant has been the beneficiary of favorable discretionary action, in that he was given a......
-
United States v. Shaughnessy
...175 F.2d 245; United States ex rel. Walther v. District Director of Immigration & Naturalization, 2 Cir., 175 F.2d 693; Sleddens v. Shaughnessy, 2 Cir., 177 F.2d 363, 364. ...