United States v. DISTRICT DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION, ETC., 201
| Decision Date | 17 June 1953 |
| Docket Number | Docket 22601.,No. 201,201 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES ex rel. NUKK v. DISTRICT DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION AT PORT OF NEW YORK et al. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit |
Myles J. Lane, U. S. Atty. for Southern District of New York, New York City, William J. Sexton, Asst. U. S. Atty., New York City, Louis Steinberg, New York City, District Counsel, Immigration and Naturalization Service, Lester Friedman, New York City, Attorney, Immigration and Naturalization Service, Max Blau, New York City, Attorney, Immigration and Naturalization Service, of counsel, for respondent-appellee.
Ira Gollobin, New York City, Harry Sacher, New York City, of counsel, for relator-appellant.
Before SWAN, Chief Judge, and CHASE and CLARK, Circuit Judges.
This appeal presents issues as to the right of an alien, lawfully ordered deported, to be released on bail pending the execution of the deportation warrant. They are much like those recently dealt with in United States ex rel. Yaris v. Esperdy, 2 Cir., 202 F.2d 109.
The appellant is an alien, a native of Estonia, who was lawfully admitted to this country for permanent residence in 1939. He has been lawfully ordered deported on the ground that after his entry he became a member of the Communist Party of the United States, and no question as to his deportability now survives. However, after he had been admitted to bail and while the proceedings for his deportation were still pending, the Attorney General directed that he be retaken into custody and held without bail. The deportation order became final on December 8, 1952, and the sole question now is whether the appellant has been unlawfully detained pending the execution of the deportation warrant.
The Internal Security Act of 1950 was in effect when the deportation proceedings were commenced and until December 24, 1952, when it was superseded by the Immigration and Nationality Act. As the lawfulness of the appellant's detention is to be determined in accordance with the law now applicable rather than that at the time the order on review was made,1 the appellee insists that the controlling statute is § 242(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C.A. § 1252(c), rather than § 23 of the Internal Security Act of 1950, 8 U.S.C. § 156. Both statutes provide that the Attorney General shall have six months from the date the deportation order becomes final to effect the alien's departure from this country and that during such period he may, at the Attorney General's discretion, be detained or released on bond in such amount and on such conditions as the Attorney General may fix. Sec. 23 provides also for release on conditional parole and § 242(c) for release on such conditions as the Attorney General may prescribe. The only difference between the two sections which is of present significance is that the following provision for judicial review appears only in Sec. 242(c):
"Any court of competent jurisdiction shall have authority to review or revise any determination of the Attorney General concerning detention, release on bond, or other release during such six-month period upon a conclusive showing in habeas corpus proceedings that the Attorney General is not proceeding with such reasonable dispatch as may be warranted by the particular facts and circumstances in the case of any alien to effect such alien\'s departure from the United States within such six-month period."
Now, as it did with respect to § 242(a) in United States ex rel. Yaris v. Esperdy, supra, 202 F.2d at page 112, the Government contends that the above quoted language confines judicial review of the Attorney General's exercise of discretion in denying bail to an alien to the ground therein expressly stated. Consequently, we are urged to affirm the order dismissing the writ for failure to make such a conclusive showing of lack of reasonable dispatch in deporting the relator.
In the Yaris case we did not agree with the Government's construction of the statute; but in this instance we do not reach that question...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Fernandez v. Wilkinson
...v. Brownell, 206 F.2d 449 (D.C.Cir.1953), aff'd 346 U.S. 929, 74 S.Ct. 319, 98 L.Ed. 421 (1954); Nukk v. District Director of Immigration, etc., 205 F.2d 242 (2d Cir. 1953); Yaris v. Esperdy, 202 F.2d 109 (2d Cir. 1953); Barber v. Yanish, 196 F.2d 53 (9th Cir. 1952), cert. denied 344 U.S. 8......
-
Thomas v. Teets
...205 F.2d 236 (1953) ... No. 13134 ... United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit ... April ... rendered May 28, 1952, by the California District Court of Appeal, First District, holding that ... Wells, 9 Cir., 201 F.2d 503, 504. There the district court accepted ... ...
-
Spinella v. Esperdy
...is there any violation of the Eighth Amendment in the statutory provision regarding bail. See also United States ex rel. Nukk v. District Director of Immigration, 2 Cir., 1953, 205 F.2d 242; Ocon v. Landon, 9 Cir., 1954, 218 F.2d Plaintiff contends that Section 1252 (a) contravenes the Four......
-
In re Sacher, 183
...D.C.S.D.N.Y., 101 F.Supp. 666, where the record showed commendation also by the district judge; U. S. ex rel. Nukk v. District Director of Immigration and Naturalization, 2 Cir., 205 F.2d 242. Were we to select a public defender, we could hardly do better than seek respondent's services in ......