Vlisidis v. Holland, 12246
| Decision Date | 03 July 1957 |
| Docket Number | No. 12246,12247.,12246 |
| Parties | George VLISIDIS, Appellant, v. J. W. HOLLAND, District Director, Immigration and Naturalization Service. Nicholaos MAVRELOS, Appellant, v. J. W. HOLLAND, District Director, Immigration and Naturalization Service. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit |
J. J. Kilimnik, Philadelphia, Pa., for appellants.
Louis O. Bechtle, Asst. U. S. Attorney, Philadelphia, Pa., for appellee.
Before MARIS, STALEY and HASTIE, Circuit Judges.
Plaintiffs Vlisidis and Mavrelos are persons whom a Special Inquiry Officer of the Immigration and Naturalization Service has found, after hearing, to be alien crewmen, citizens of Greece, who were permitted to enter this country temporarily in non-immigrant status and thereafter remained here illegally. Accordingly, their deportation was ordered. The plaintiffs then challenged these deportation orders in the district court by filing complaints against the responsible regional officer of the Immigration and Naturalization Service under the Declaratory Judgments Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201, 2202 and the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C.A. § 1001 et seq., alleging that due process of law had been denied them in the administrative proceedings. In each case the district court granted summary judgment denying relief and the plaintiff has appealed.
The two cases are very much alike and we will consider them together. We find only one argument on each appeal that is sufficiently substantial to require discussion and analysis. That is the argument that the Special Inquiry Officer penalized these individuals in an unconstitutional way by drawing an unfavorable inference against each of them because, claiming privilege under the 5th Amendment, he had refused to testify at the deportation hearing about his origin, citizenship or stay in this country, and also had refused to identify certain documents.
For purposes of the present analysis we will outline the occurrences in the Mavrelos case and will refer to Vlisidis only where a significant difference appears. At the beginning of the hearing the respondent identified himself as Nicholaos Mavrelos and was sworn as a witness. He admitted that he was present in response to a letter addressed to him at his residence and notifying him to be present at this hearing to show cause why he should not be deported. He was also shown a warrant of arrest charging one Nicholaos Mavrelos with having entered this country at a given time and place as an alien crewman and with remaining illegally in violation of the conditions of his temporary entry. He then refused to identify the warrant or to comment upon it, claiming privilege under the 5th Amendment. He also refused to answer questions about his birth and citizenship and the circumstances of his presence in the United States. He refused to identify various documents and statements which were exhibited to him. Despite this refusal, and without any other testimony about the documents, they were made part of the record.
We find it necessary to discuss only one of these documents. It was a printed Form 1-95A of the Immigration Service, entitled "Crewman's Landing Permit". It appeared to be an original document duly executed and signed by an immigration officer and countersigned by "N. Mavrelos" as a Greek national who had entered this country as a seaman at the port of New Orleans on October 19, 1954, and had been granted permission to remain not more than twenty-nine days. Such a Crewman's Landing Permit is an official document prescribed and required by the Regulations of the Immigration and Naturalization Service, 8 C.F.R. §§ 251.31, 252.1. Thus, on its face the paper before the Special Inquiry Officer appeared to be an official and required record of the Immigration Service. We think that such a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Rangel-Perez
...25 L.Ed. 628; Brewster v. Villa, 5 Cir., 1937, 90 F.2d 853, 854; Brader v. Zurbrick, 6 Cir., 1930, 38 F.2d 472, 473; Vlisidis v. Holland, 3 Cir., 1957, 245 F.2d 812 affirming D.C.E. D.Pa.1957, 150 F.Supp. 678; United States ex rel. Barilla v. Uhl, D.C.S.D.N. Y.1939, 27 F.Supp. 746, affirmed......
-
Lam Man Chi v. Bouchard
...without a specification of destination, Shaughnessy v. Pedreiro, 349 U.S. 48, 75 S.Ct. 591, 99 L. Ed. 868 (1955); Cf. Vlisidis v. Holland, 245 F.2d 812 (3 Cir., 1957), and orders denying applications to withhold deportation under 8 U.S.C. § 1253(h), Blazina v. Bouchard, 286 F.2d 507 (3 Cir.......
-
Vlisidis v. Holland
...Southeast Region Immigration & Naturalization Service, Richmond, Va., of counsel, for defendant. Judgment Affirmed July 3, 1957. See 245 F.2d 812. LORD, District These are like civil actions for declaratory judgments and judicial review. The plaintiffs have been found to be aliens subject t......
-
Harms, Inc. v. Sansom House Enterprises, Inc.
...208, 226, 59 S.Ct. 467, 83 L.Ed. 610, and cases cited; see Vlisidis v. Holland, D.C.E.D.Pa.1957, 150 F.Supp. 678, 683, affirmed 3 Cir., 1957, 245 F.2d 812. Finding 14 has heretofore described the affirmative defense of violation of the Anti-Trust Laws, and has correctly stated that no evide......