UNITED STATES EX REL. MUSTAFA
v.
PEDERSON

7th Cir. | 1953-09-21
No. 10829
207 F.2d 112 United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit (1953) Positive Treatment
Cited by 6 cases

AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.


Holding

The court held that the relator knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to counsel and was not denied due process.


Facts & Procedural History

Relator, detained for deportation, sought habeas corpus, claiming abuse of discretion and denial of due process for not being allowed voluntary depart…

The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.


Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

Relator, detained under a warrant of deportation, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the district court. He claims that the Attorney General, acting through the hearing officer of Immigration and Naturalization, abused his discretion in not permitting relator to voluntarily depart this country in lieu of deportation. Relator’s second claim is that he was denied due process because he was not represented by counsel at the hearing before the hearing officer. Relator’s contention as to abuse of discretion 'is overruled on the basis of our decision in United States ex rel. Cianna-mea v. Neelly, 7 Cir., 202 F. 2d 289.

Relator, a native of Palestine, was admitted to the United States on a visitor’s visa for six months for agricultural purposes, the period for which he could remain expiring January 8, 1951. He remained in this country without authority after that date, and was arrested on October 3, 1951. Immediately he employed counsel but the latter withdrew prior to the deportation hearing. The record of the hearing discloses that relator was advised that he was entitled to have counsel represent him, that he could present evidence and cross-examine witnesses, but that he decided to proceed without counsel. He was also advised of his right to request voluntary departure. Shortly after the termination of the hearing petitioner again employed counsel, who argued his appeal before the Board of Immigration Appeals.

We hold that petitioner knowingly, understandingly, and voluntarily waived counsel, and that he was accorded a full and fair hearing, and was not denied due process of law.

Order dismissing petition for habeas corpus affirmed.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw