Max Asuncion Tugade v. Richard C. Hoy, District Director, Immigration and Naturalization Service
This text of 265 F.2d 63 (Max Asuncion Tugade v. Richard C. Hoy, District Director, Immigration and Naturalization Service) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
Appellant, appealing from an adverse decision below where he sought review of the order of deportation affecting him, raises for the first time on this appeal four matters, and cites one case not directly in point.
Appellant urges: (1) that Presidential Proclamation No. 2696 1 , 22 U.S.C.A. §, *64 1281a, historical note, was unconstitutional; (2) that the 1956 amendment of § 241(a) (11) of the Immigration and Naturalization Act 2 was prospective in its application; (3) that the saving clause (§ 405(a) of the Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1952) 3 gave appellant a status of nondeportability; and *65 (4) that the Philippine Independence Act of 1934, 48 Stat. 456, was unconstitutional in changing appellant’s status from a national to that of an alien.
The first point is without merit. The Congress saw fit to make the complete independence of the Philippine Islands contingent upon action by the President of the United States. In so providing, it was itself legislating, and the President, by his proclamations 4 , 22 U.S.C.A. § 1394, historical note, pursuant to such express authority, acted within his authority and constitutionally.
The second point is without merit. The statute, § 241(a) (11) as amended, 70 Stat. 575 (1956), by its terms is specifically made retroactive to one “who at any time has been convicted of a violation of * * * any law * * * relating to the illicit possession of * * * narcotic drugs * * [Emphasis added.]
*66 The third point is without merit. Rabang v. Boyd, 1957, 353 U.S. 427, 77 S.Ct. 985, 1 L.Ed.2d 956. This ease was distinguished on its face from Barber v. Gonzales, 1954, 347 U.S. 637, 74 S.Ct. 822, 98 L.Ed. 1009, because entry from a foreign country is not a condition of deportability. And see, Rabang v. Boyd, 9 Cir., 1956, 234 F.2d 904.
The fourth point is without merit. It has been previously decided adversely to appellant. Cabebe v. Acheson, 9 Cir., 1950, 183 F.2d 795; Rabang v. Boyd, 1957, 353 U.S. 427, 77 S.Ct. 985, 1 L.Ed.2d 956.
The judgment is affirmed.
. 60 Stat. 1353 (3946):
“Immigration Quota for Philippine Islands By The President Of The United States Of America A Proclamation
“Whereas the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Commerce, and the Attorney General have reported to the President that pursuant to the duty imposed and the authority conferred upon them in and by sections 11 and 12 of the Immigration Act of 1924 approved May 26, 1924 (43 Stat. 159, 161) and Reorganization Plan No. V (3 OPR Cum.Supp., Ch. IV), they jointly have made the revision provided for in section 12 of the said act *64 and have fixed the quota for the Philippine Islands in accordance therewith to be as hereinafter set forth.
“Now, Therefore, I Harry S. Truman, President of the United States of America, acting under and by virtue of the power in me vested by the aforesaid act of Congress, do hereby proclaim and make known that the annual quota for the Philippine Islands effective July 4, 1946, for the remainder of the fiscal year ending June 30, 1947, and for each fiscal year thereafter, has been determined in accordance with the law to be, and shall be 100.
“The immigration quota of 50 authorized by section 8(a) (1) of the Act approved March 24,1934, entitled ‘An Act to provide for the complete independence of the Philippine Islands, to provide for the adoption of a constitution and a form of government for the Philippine Islands, and for other purposes’ (48 Stat. 462 ; 53 Stat. 1230; 48 U.S.C. 1238), which Act was accepted by concurrent resolution of the Philippine Legislature on May 1, 1934, and which became effective on - that date, will become inoperative on July 4, 1946, the date the Government of the United States recognizes the independence of the Philippine Islands as a separate and self-governing nation.
“The immigration quota assigned to the Philippine Islands is designed solely for purposes of compliance with the pertinent provisions of the Immigration Act of 1924 and is not to be regarded as having any significance extraneous to this subject.
“This proclamation shall have the effect of amending Proclamation 2283 of April 28, 1938, and is the third amendment to that proclamation.
“In Witness Whereof, I have hereunto set by hand and caused the seal of the United States of America to be affixed.
“Done at the city of Washington this 4th day of July, in the year of our Lord nineteen hundred and forty six and of the
[Seal] Independence of the United States of America the one hundred and seventy-first.
“Harry S Truman
“By the President:
“Dean Acheson
“Acting Secretary of State.”
. 8 U.S.C.A. § 1251(a) (11) as amended, 70 Stat. 575 (1956), reads as follows:
“(a) Any alien in the United States (including an alien crewman) shall, upon the order of the Attorney General, be deported who—
“ (11) is, or hereafter at any time after entry has been, a narcotic drug addict, or who at any time has been convicted of a violation of, or a conspiracy to violate, any law or regulation relating to the illicit possession of or traffic in narcotic drugs, or who has been convicted of a violation of, or a conspiracy to violate, any law or regulation governing or controlling the taxing, manufacture, production, compounding, transportation, sale, exchange, dispensing, giving away, importation, exportation, or the possession for the purpose of the manufacture, production, compounding, transportation, sale, exchange, dispensing, giving away, importation, or exportation of opium, coca leaves, heroin, marihuana, any salt derivative or preparation of opium or coca leaves or isonipecaine or any addiction-forming or addiction-sustaining opiate;’ ”
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
265 F.2d 63, 1959 U.S. App. LEXIS 4148, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/max-asuncion-tugade-v-richard-c-hoy-district-director-immigration-and-ca9-1959.