United States v. Shaughnessy, No. 132
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (2nd Circuit) |
| Writing for the Court | FRANK, Circuit |
| Citation | 186 F.2d 580 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES ex rel. JANKOWSKI v. SHAUGHNESSY. |
| Docket Number | No. 132,Docket 21882. |
| Decision Date | 29 January 1951 |
186 F.2d 580 (1951)
UNITED STATES ex rel. JANKOWSKI
v.
SHAUGHNESSY.
No. 132, Docket 21882.
United States Court of Appeals Second Circuit.
Argued December 15, 1950.
Decided January 29, 1951.
Before AUGUSTUS N. HAND, CLARK and FRANK, Circuit Judges.
Carol King and Blanch Freedman, New York City, for relator-appellant.
Irving H. Saypol, New York City (William J. Sexton, Asst. U. S. Atty., Louis Steinberg, Immigration and Naturalization Service, and Lester Friedman, Immigration and Naturalization Service, all of New York City, of counsel), for respondent-appellee.
FRANK, Circuit Judge.
1. Under Executive Order No. 8766, June 3, 1941, Part II(1),1 and Regulations
8 C.F.R. 175.42 and 176.201, appellant could lawfully have entered the United States for permanent residence only if he then possessed a "valid" visa. A visa obtained by fraud or misrepresentation of a material fact is not a valid visa.2At the deportation hearings, there was substantial evidence to support the examiner's finding that appellant procured his visa "by fraud and misrepresentation in that it appears that, in his application, he * * * concealed the fact that he had been arrested in England in 1940 and imprisoned there until December 1942, and falsely stated that he was at sea during the period he actually was in prison in England." The misrepresentation and concealment were material. Had he disclosed those facts, they would have been enough to justify the refusal of a visa.3 For surely they would have led to a temporary refusal, pending a further inquiry, the results of which might well have prompted a final refusal.
2. At the opening of the deportation hearings, appellant expressly waived the right to counsel. He was then questioned in detail about the false statements in his application for the visa. Later the hearings were reopened; again, when asked, he said he did not desire counsel. We perceive no unfairness in the hearings.
3. Section 27 of the Internal Security Act of 1950, 8 U.S.C.A. § 729(c), explicitly devitalizes our decision in U. S. ex rel. Walther v. District Director of Immigration & Naturalization, 2 Cir., 175 F.2d 693, by providing: "No person shall be naturalized against whom there is outstanding a final finding of deportability * * *." Appellant contends that this provision does not apply to a naturalization petition pending at the time when the new Act became effective. For the reasons stated by the judge below, we see no...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Fedorenko v. United States, No. 79-5602
...valid. See, e. g., Ablett v. Brownell, 99 U.S.App.D.C. 387, 391, 240 F.2d 625, 629 (1957); United States ex rel. Jankowski v. Shaughnessy, 186 F.2d 580, 582 (CA2 1951). Section 10 of the DPA, 62 Stat. 1013, provided that "all immigration laws, . . . shall be applicable to . . . eligibl......
-
United States v. Demjanjuk, No. C77-923.
...obtained through a material misrepresentation was not valid. Ablett v. Brownell, 240 F.2d 625, 629 (D.C.Cir. 1957); U. S. v. Shaughnessy, 186 F.2d 580, 582 (2d Cir. 42 If an applicant stated during an interview that he was formerly a Soviet soldier, captured by the Germans, taken to a priso......
-
Matter of S----, A-11460920
...2, 1956); Matter of C---- T---- P----, 8-134). In 1956 the Service, in the belief that United States ex rel. Jankowski v. Shaughnessy, 186 F.2d 580 (C.A. 2, 1951), had disapproved Iorio, pressed for a rule declaring the materiality of any misrepresentation knowingly made which had a natural......
-
United States v. Flores-Rodriguez, No. 395
...which might have resulted in a proper refusal of the visa. United States ex rel. Jankowski v. 237 F.2d 409 Shaughnessy, 2 Cir., 1951, 186 F.2d 580; United States ex rel. Fink v. Reimer, 2 Cir., 1938, 96 F.2d The vice-consul should not have issued an immigration visa to the defendant if the ......
-
Fedorenko v. United States, No. 79-5602
...valid. See, e. g., Ablett v. Brownell, 99 U.S.App.D.C. 387, 391, 240 F.2d 625, 629 (1957); United States ex rel. Jankowski v. Shaughnessy, 186 F.2d 580, 582 (CA2 1951). Section 10 of the DPA, 62 Stat. 1013, provided that "all immigration laws, . . . shall be applicable to . . . eligibl......
-
United States v. Demjanjuk, No. C77-923.
...obtained through a material misrepresentation was not valid. Ablett v. Brownell, 240 F.2d 625, 629 (D.C.Cir. 1957); U. S. v. Shaughnessy, 186 F.2d 580, 582 (2d Cir. 42 If an applicant stated during an interview that he was formerly a Soviet soldier, captured by the Germans, taken to a priso......
-
Matter of S----, A-11460920
...2, 1956); Matter of C---- T---- P----, 8-134). In 1956 the Service, in the belief that United States ex rel. Jankowski v. Shaughnessy, 186 F.2d 580 (C.A. 2, 1951), had disapproved Iorio, pressed for a rule declaring the materiality of any misrepresentation knowingly made which had a natural......
-
United States v. Flores-Rodriguez, No. 395
...which might have resulted in a proper refusal of the visa. United States ex rel. Jankowski v. 237 F.2d 409 Shaughnessy, 2 Cir., 1951, 186 F.2d 580; United States ex rel. Fink v. Reimer, 2 Cir., 1938, 96 F.2d The vice-consul should not have issued an immigration visa to the defendant if the ......