Aleksander Dabrowski v. John W. Holland, District Director of Immigration and Naturalization for the 4th Immigration District, Philadelphia, Pa

Third Circuit

Aleksander Dabrowski v. John W. Holland, District Director of Immigration and Naturalization for the 4th Immigration District, Philadelphia, Pa

259 F.2d 449, 1958 U.S. App. LEXIS 4754

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit

DecidedOctober 10, 1958

Docket12593_1

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 259 F.2d 449 (Aleksander Dabrowski v. John W. Holland, District Director of Immigration and Naturalization for the 4th Immigration District, Philadelphia, Pa) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Aleksander Dabrowski v. John W. Holland, District Director of Immigration and Naturalization for the 4th Immigration District, Philadelphia, Pa, 259 F.2d 449, 1958 U.S. App. LEXIS 4754 (3d Cir. 1958).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from the judgment dismissing the plaintiff’s action. He seeks a review of an order denying him a stay of deportation under Section 243 (h) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952. Plaintiff has had full hearing on the administrative side. His story was disbelieved by the hearing officer. The statute to which reference is made authorizes the Attorney General to withhold deportation where “in his opinion the alien would be subject to physical persecution * * *.” 8 U.S.C.A. § 1253(h) (1953). The original discretion under the statute, by its very terms, is vested in the Attorney General. Under what circumstances that discretion might be reviewable in case it was not fairly exercised we do not need to settle here. The record in this case shows no unfairness or arbitrariness although the result reached is naturally unsatisfactory to the plaintiff.

The judgment of the district court will be affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from the judgment dismissing the plaintiff’s action. He seeks a review of an order denying him a stay of deportation under Section 243 (h) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952. Plaintiff has had full hearing on the administrative side. His story was disbelieved by the hearing officer. The statute to which reference is made authorizes the Attorney General to withhold deportation where “in his opinion the alien would be subject to physical persecution * * *.” 8 U.S.C.A. § 1253(h) (1953). The original discretion under the statute, by its very terms, is vested in the Attorney General. Under what circumstances that discretion might be reviewable in case it was not fairly exercised we do not need to settle here. The record in this case shows no unfairness or arbitrariness although the result reached is naturally unsatisfactory to the plaintiff.

The judgment of the district court will be affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

259 F.2d 449, 1958 U.S. App. LEXIS 4754, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/aleksander-dabrowski-v-john-w-holland-district-director-of-immigration-ca3-1958.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack