CECIL REGINALD JAY, APPELLANT,
v.
JOHN B. BOYD, DISTRICT DIRECTOR, IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE, APPELLEE
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.
The court held that an alien could be deported for past membership in the Communist Party, even if non-membership was not a condition of entry, and that denial of a deportation suspension based on confidential information did not violate due process.
An alien, a citizen of Great Britain, was ordered deported for past membership in the Communist Party of the United States. He applied for suspension …
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.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Internal Security Act Of 1950 cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The appellant, a citizen of Great Britain, entered the United States in 1921, where he has since resided. From 1935 to 1940, according to his own testimony in the deportation proceedings herein mentioned, he was a member of the Communist Party of the United States. After passage of the Internal Security Act of September 23, 1950, 64 Stat. 987, he was ordered deported as an alien who had been a voluntary member of the Communist Party. After exhausting his administrative remedies before the Board of Immigration Appeals, appellant has attempted by petition for writ of habeas corpus in the court be-Tow to assert that he cannot be expelled for membership in the Communist Party from 1935 to 1940 since non-membership was not made a condition of his entry. The court below correctly rejected this contention. Galvan v. Press, 347 U.S. 522, 74 S.Ct. 737, 98 L.Ed. 911.
Appellant applied for suspension of deportation under § 244(a) (5) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, 8 U.S.C.A. § 1254(a) (5), which provides that the Attorney General may in his discretion suspend deportation in certain cases. Upon hearing held on this application before a special inquiry officer, that officer denied the application reciting that the denial was on the basis of confidential information relating to the appellant, disclosure of which, in the opinion of the officer, would be prejudicial to the public interest.
This ruling of the officer was expressly authorized by C.F.R. Title 8, § 244.3.
Appellant attacks his detention upon the ground that he was denied due process of law in the consideration of his ap plication for suspension of deportation because of the use of this confidential information. This contention is likewise wholly without merit. U. S. ex rel. Matranga v. Mackey, 2 Cir., 210 F. 2d 160.
The decision denying appellant’s application for writ of habeas corpus is affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
JAY v. Boyd, 351 U.S. 345 (U.S. 1956)
-
Bedrettin Cakmar v. HOY, 265 F.2d 59 (9th Cir. 1959)
-
Chiu BUT HAO v. Barber, 222 F.2d 821 (9th Cir. 1955)
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Galvan v. Press, 347 U.S. 522 (U.S. 1954)
- United States ex rel. Matranga v. MacKey, 210 F.2d 160 (2d Cir. 1954)