Case Resources
Search this Case
in
Google Scholar
on the Web
Google
Web Search
MSN
Web Search
Yahoo!
Web Search
in the News
Google
News Search
Google
News Archive Search
Yahoo! News Search
in the Blogs
BlawgSearch.com Search
Google
Blog Search
Technorati
Blog Search
in other Databases
Google
Book Search
Justia Research Resources
Justia.com
Supreme Court Center
US Regulation Tracker
US District Court Opinions
Federal District Court Civil Case Filings
Legal Blog Search
Legal Podcast Search
USA Constitution Annotated
Online Research Resources
Cornell LII
Cornell Wex Dictionary & Encyclopedia
LLRX.com - Legal Research
Expert Witness Directory
Nolo Consumer & Business
US Court Forms
WashLaw Directory
World LII
Cases Provided By
Creative Commons
public.resource.org
Antonio Da Cruz, Appellant, v. J. W. Holland, District Director, Immigration Andnaturalization Service
United States Court of Appeals Third Circuit. - 241 F.2d 118
Argued Jan. 22, 1957.Decided Feb. 12, 1957
J. J. Kilimnik, Philadelphia, Pa., for appellant.
Robert W. Lees, Asst. U.S. Atty., Philadelphia, Pa. (W. Wilson White, U.S. Atty., Arthur R. Littleton, Asst. U.S. Atty., Philadelphia, Pa., on the brief), for appellee.
Before BIGGS, Chief Judge, and McLAUGHLIN and HASTIE, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
The appellant, Antonio DaCruz, has been ordered deported on the charge stated in the warrant of arrest that he failed to maintain his non-immigrant, visitor's status. There is no doubt but that he was gainfully employed within a few days after his entry into this county and was so employed at the time of his arrest. His counsel subsequently exhausted all available administrative procedures on his behalf. DaCruz claims is substance that he was illegally arrested without a warrant of arrest and that certain documents, including his passport, were then illegally taken from his possession, that he was denied a hearing de novo after a demand by him that the arresting officer testify before the hearing officer, and that the hearing officer himself was without authority to proceed in his case. He asserts in effect that neither the provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C.A. §§ 1001-1011, nor of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, 8 U.S.C.A. § 1101 et seq., were complied with and that he was denied rights guaranteed to him by the Fifth Amendment.
None of the points raised by DaCruz possesses merit and some border on the frivolous. See for example the charge in respect to the authority of the hearing officer in the light of the Savings Clause of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952. Sec. 405 of the Act, 8 U.S.C.A. 1101 note.
The court below was not in error in granting summary judgment against DaCruz. Accordingly the judgment will be affirmed.