Istvan Gardos A/K/A Steven Garrick, A/K/A Sir William Barrick v. Immigration and Naturalization Service

Second Circuit

Istvan Gardos A/K/A Steven Garrick, A/K/A Sir William Barrick v. Immigration and Naturalization Service

324 F.2d 179, 1963 U.S. App. LEXIS 3745

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedNovember 13, 1963

Docket149, Docket 28230

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 324 F.2d 179 (Istvan Gardos A/K/A Steven Garrick, A/K/A Sir William Barrick v. Immigration and Naturalization Service) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Istvan Gardos A/K/A Steven Garrick, A/K/A Sir William Barrick v. Immigration and Naturalization Service, 324 F.2d 179, 1963 U.S. App. LEXIS 3745 (2d Cir. 1963).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This petition to review an order of deportation was taken on submission without argument. It presents questions of law which are controlled by congressional legislation and decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States. All the facts are admitted. The petitioner was born in Hungary. He came to Canada and became a Canadian citizen in 1955. The following year he was convicted in Canada of illegally possessing marihuana. When he was admitted to the United States, in 1959, the Canadian conviction was not a ground for exclusion or deportation, but in 1960 the statute was amended to authorize deportation of an alien “who at any time has been convicted of a violation of * * * any law or regulation relating to the illicit possession of or traffic in narcotic drugs or marihuana.” [Italics added.] 8 U.S.C.A. § 1251(a) (11), as amended 74 Stat. 505, § 9 (1960). That this was to be effective retroactively was decided in Mulcahey v. Cattalonette, 353 U.S. 692, 77 S.Ct. 1025, 1 L.Ed.2d 121. That such retroactive application does not violate the ex post facto prohibition of Article 1, section 9 of the Constitution has long been recognized, since the ex post facto prohibition is limited to crimes, and deportation is a civil proceeding. Harisiades v. Shaughnessy, 342 U.S. 580, 72 S.Ct. 512, 96 L.Ed. 586; Marcello v. Bonds, 349 U.S. 302, 75 S.Ct. 757, 99 L.Ed. 1107.

Order of deportation affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

This petition to review an order of deportation was taken on submission without argument. It presents questions of law which are controlled by congressional legislation and decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States. All the facts are admitted. The petitioner was born in Hungary. He came to Canada and became a Canadian citizen in 1955. The following year he was convicted in Canada of illegally possessing marihuana. When he was admitted to the United States, in 1959, the Canadian conviction was not a ground for exclusion or deportation, but in 1960 the statute was amended to authorize deportation of an alien “who at any time has been convicted of a violation of * * * any law or regulation relating to the illicit possession of or traffic in narcotic drugs or marihuana.” [Italics added.] 8 U.S.C.A. § 1251(a) (11), as amended 74 Stat. 505, § 9 (1960). That this was to be effective retroactively was decided in Mulcahey v. Cattalonette, 353 U.S. 692, 77 S.Ct. 1025, 1 L.Ed.2d 121. That such retroactive application does not violate the ex post facto prohibition of Article 1, section 9 of the Constitution has long been recognized, since the ex post facto prohibition is limited to crimes, and deportation is a civil proceeding. Harisiades v. Shaughnessy, 342 U.S. 580, 72 S.Ct. 512, 96 L.Ed. 586; Marcello v. Bonds, 349 U.S. 302, 75 S.Ct. 757, 99 L.Ed. 1107.

Order of deportation affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

324 F.2d 179, 1963 U.S. App. LEXIS 3745, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/istvan-gardos-aka-steven-garrick-aka-sir-william-barrick-v-ca2-1963.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack