United States v. Watkins, 118
| Decision Date | 05 January 1950 |
| Docket Number | No. 118,Docket 21495.,118 |
| Citation | 179 F.2d 137 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES ex rel. VAJTA v. WATKINS. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit |
Hyman Margolis, Brooklyn, N. Y., for relator-appellant.
Irving H. Saypol, United States Attorney, New York City, William J. Sexton, Assistant United States Attorney, New York City, Louis Steinberg, District Counsel, U. S. Department of Justice, Immigration and Naturalization Service, New York City, Max Blau, Attorney, U. S. Department of Justice, Immigration and Naturalization Service, New York City, Lester Friedman, Attorney, U. S. Department of Justice, Immigration and Naturalization Service, New York City, of counsel, for respondent-appellee.
Before AUGUSTUS N. HAND, CHASE and CLARK, Circuit Judges.
The appellant is a native of Hungary who now claims to be stateless. He entered this country at the Port of New York on December 16, 1947, being admitted as a temporary visitor for six months on a non-immigration visa issued under the provisions of Section 15 of the Immigration Act of 1924, as amended, 8 U.S.C.A. § 215.
Soon after his entry, he was arrested on a deportation warrant and charged with being illegally in this country on various grounds as to all of which, except one, he prevailed after hearing. He was, however, ordered deported on the ground that he was an alien whose entry was "prejudicial to the interests of the United States," within 8 C.F.R. 175.53 and who consequently could have been excluded under 8 C.F.R. 175.57.1 The Board of Immigration Appeals reversed; directed that the proceedings be terminated; and ordered that the relator be given a reasonable time to depart voluntarily, his allowed stay under his visitor's permit having expired. It then certified the case to the Attorney General pursuant to 8 C.F.R. 90.12, and the Attorney General reversed the order of the Board of Immigration Appeals and reinstated the deportation order. The relator then applied for a writ of habeas corpus and has taken this appeal from its dismissal.
Except for the fact that he was allowed to enter as a temporary visitor, the appellant is in the same situation as was the alien temporarily and then permanently excluded in United States ex rel. Knauff v. Watkins, 2 Cir., 173 F.2d 599, certiorari granted, 336 U.S. 966, 69 S.Ct. 941. While it may be that the Knauff case will be reversed, we are, for the time being at least, disposed to follow it and that reduces the issues for consideration on this appeal to one, whether the Knauff case is distinguishable because it dealt with an alien who was temporarily excluded while this relator was temporarily admitted.
The applicable statute is Section 19 of the Immigration Act of 1917, 8 U.S.C.A. § 155, and reads, in pertinent part, as follows: "(a) At any time within five years after entry, any alien who at the time of entry was a member of one or more of the classes excluded by law; * * * shall, upon the warrant of the Attorney General, be taken into custody and deported. * * *"
While this alien was in this country before his entry was found by the proper authorities to be prejudicial to the interests of the United States, in a very real sense he "at the time of entry was a member of one or more of the classes excluded by law." As pointed out in the Knauff case, supra, the regulations provide a method of determining before entry whether an alien is excludable on the ground upon which this alien, has been ordered deported after entry. But if for any reason an alien whose entry is prejudicial to the interests of the United States is not, as he should be, temporarily excluded by an immigration inspector, we do not think he thereby obtains immunity from deportation. A construction of Section 19(a) which would require that the determination that he is excludable be made at the time of entry, if at all, seems too formal. See U. S. ex rel. Faneco v. Corsi, D. C., S. D. N. Y., 57 F.2d 868, affirmed without opinion, 2 Cir., 61 F.2d 1043.
Appellant relies upon the enactment, after his entry, of Public Law 552, 80th Cong., 2d Sess.,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Esperdy
...247 F.2d 1 (2d Cir. 1957); cert. den. 355 U.S. 926, 78 S.Ct. 384, 2 L.Ed. 2d 357 (1958) sub. nom. Paris v. Murff; Vajta v. Watkins, 179 F.2d 137, 139 (2d Cir. 1950). The Court of Appeals doubtless meant to refer to Section 1105a(a) (9), which provides, "any alien held in custody pursuant to......
-
United States v. Lehmann
...of "any alien who at the time of entry was a member of one or more of the classes excluded by law." See United States ex rel. Vajta v. Watkins, 2 Cir., 179 F.2d 137. The five-year limitation on deportation applied in all such cases, and inasmuch as no attempt was made within five years afte......
-
Matter of Church Scientology International
...see also Pearson v. Williams, 202 U.S. 281 (1906); Lazarescu v. United States, 199 F.2d 898 (4th Cir. 1952); United States ex rel. Vajta v. Watkins, 179 F.2d 137 (2d Cir. 1950); Mannerfrid v. Brownell, 145 F. Supp. 55 (D.D.C.), aff'd, 238 F.2d 32 (D.C. Cir. In view of the congressional inte......
-
Matter of Khan
...1956); Lazarescu v. United States, 199 F.2d 898 (C.A. 4, 1952), affirming 104 F.Supp. 771 (D. Md., 1952); U.S. ex rel. Vajta v. Watkins, 179 F.2d 137 (C.A. 2, 1950); Matter of M----, 4 I. & N. Dec. 532 (BIA, 1952; and A.G., 1952). Section 241(a)(1) of the Act presupposes that the situation ......