Shing v. Zimmerman

E.D. Pennsylvania

Shing v. Zimmerman

85 F. Supp. 270, 1949 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2436

CourtDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania

DecidedAugust 11, 1949

DocketCiv. A. No. 9710

StatusPublished

This text of 85 F. Supp. 270 (Shing v. Zimmerman) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Shing v. Zimmerman, 85 F. Supp. 270, 1949 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2436 (E.D. Pa. 1949).

Pincite

Opinion

McGRANERY, District Judge.

Upon an application for review by the plaintiff, this Court entered against the defendants a rule to show cause why an Order and Warrant of Deportation should not be set aside and the case reopened to permit the exercise of certain discretionary relief to which plaintiff claimed he was entitled. The Government now moves to dismiss the application for review and to discharge the rule to show cause, on the ground that this Court has no jurisdiction over the defendant.

The right to Judicial review of the deportation proceedings is predicated upon the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S. C.A. § 1001 et seq. In United States ex rel. Trinler v. Carusi, D.C., 72 F. Supp. 193, I stated that the Administrative Procedure Act does not authorize such review as is here sought. That judgment was reversed, 3 Cir., 166 F.2d 457, but subsequently the Circuit Court of Appeals vacated its own judgment. I adhere to the view stated in the Trinler case, and the Government’s motion will therefore be granted.

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

McGRANERY, District Judge.

Upon an application for review by the plaintiff, this Court entered against the defendants a rule to show cause why an Order and Warrant of Deportation should not be set aside and the case reopened to permit the exercise of certain discretionary relief to which plaintiff claimed he was entitled. The Government now moves to dismiss the application for review and to discharge the rule to show cause, on the ground that this Court has no jurisdiction over the defendant.

The right to Judicial review of the deportation proceedings is predicated upon the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S. C.A. § 1001 et seq. In United States ex rel. Trinler v. Carusi, D.C., 72 F. Supp. 193, I stated that the Administrative Procedure Act does not authorize such review as is here sought. That judgment was reversed, 3 Cir., 166 F.2d 457, but subsequently the Circuit Court of Appeals vacated its own judgment. I adhere to the view stated in the Trinler case, and the Government’s motion will therefore be granted.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

85 F. Supp. 270, 1949 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2436, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/shing-v-zimmerman-paed-1949.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack