Valeros v. Immigration and Naturalization Service, 16087.
| Decision Date | 28 November 1967 |
| Docket Number | No. 16087.,16087. |
| Citation | 387 F.2d 921 |
| Parties | Herminia Venus VALEROS, Petitioner, v. IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE, Respondent. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit |
Samuel D. Myers, Chicago, Ill., for petitioner.
Edward V. Hanrahan, U. S. Atty., John Peter Lulinski, Chicago, Ill., for respondent.
Before KNOCH, KILEY and FAIRCHILD, Circuit Judges.
A Special Inquiry Officer of the Immigration and Naturalization Service (Service) found petitioner subject to deportation, granted her the privilege of voluntary departure, but ordered her deported should she not depart voluntarily. The Board of Immigration Appeals dismissed petitioner's appeal from the Officer's decision. Petitioner has appealed to this court to set aside the order. We deny the petition.
The proof which was introduced by the government at petitioner's deportation hearing consists of petitioner's own testimony and several official Service documents. On the basis of this proof the Hearing Examiner concluded that petitioner was an "Exchange Visitor" and that her period of authorized residence in this country had expired.
Petitioner initially refused to testify at the hearing on the Fifth Amendment ground that her answers might subject her to prosecution for perjury in view of a previous statement she had been "forced" to give under oath. The Hearing Examiner ordered her to answer, and she complied.
The Examiner correctly recognized that the Fifth Amendment privilege may be asserted in proceedings before the Service. United States ex rel. Zapp v. District Director, 2 Cir., 120 F.2d 762; Ng Fung Ho v. White, 259 U.S. 276, 284, 42 S.Ct. 492, 66 L.Ed. 938, but grounded his order on his conclusion that there was no danger of self-incrimination to petitioner in this case because a forced statement could not be used as the basis for a prosecution for perjury.
The Service's Board of Appeals first concluded that the Examiner had correctly ordered petitioner to testify and that her testimony was properly considered in determining her deportability. The Board further decided that even if petitioner had been improperly forced to testify this illegal compulsion did not prevent the use of her testimony in a deportation proceeding since "deportation is a civil matter."
The Board of Appeals was in error. The Hearing Officer's order was improper, since the circumstances surrounding the "forced statement" were not before him, and he could not reasonably determine that it was "`perfectly clear, from a careful consideration of all the circumstances in the case, that petitioner was mistaken, and that the answers could not possibly have such tendency' to incriminate." Hoffman v. United States, 341 U.S. 479, 488, 71 S.Ct. 814, 819, 95 L.Ed. 1118. Furthermore,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Matter of Sandoval
...We will accordingly disregard the respondent's admission in this regard.1 See Tashnizi v. INS, 585 F.2d 781 (5 Cir.1978); Valeros v. INS, 387 F.2d 921 (7 Cir.1967); Estes v. Potter, 183 F.2d 865 (5 Cir.1950), cert. denied, 340 U.S. 920 (1951); Matter of R----, 4 I & N. Dec. 720 (BIA 1952). ......
-
U.S. v. Khan
...the immigration laws, decline to testify at the deportation hearing on the basis of the Fifth Amendment. Valeros v. Immigration & Naturalization Serv., 387 F.2d 921, 922 (7th Cir.1967). An alien may, however, unlike the criminal defendant, be required to answer non-incriminatory questions a......
-
Castaneda-Delgado v. Immigration and Naturalization Service, CASTANEDA-DELGADO and S
...Because of this possibility, an alien has a Fifth Amendment right to decline to testify at the deportation hearing. Valeros v. INS, 387 F.2d 921, 922 (7th Cir. 1967); Chavez-Raya v. INS, 519 F.2d 397, 401 (7th Cir. 1975).4 The cases cited in support of the proposition that the harmless erro......
-
Chavez-Raya v. Immigration and Naturalization Service
...immigration laws, decline to testify at the deportation hearing on the basis of the Fifth Amendment. Valeros v. Immigration & Naturalization Service, 387 F.2d 921, 922 (7th Cir. 1967). The alien may, however, unlike the criminal defendant, 5 be required to answer nonincriminatory questions ......