United States Ex Rel. Audrey Joan Czapkowski v. John W. Holland, District Director of Immigration and Naturalization for the Fourth District

Third Circuit

United States Ex Rel. Audrey Joan Czapkowski v. John W. Holland, District Director of Immigration and Naturalization for the Fourth District

220 F.2d 436, 1955 U.S. App. LEXIS 3361

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit

DecidedMarch 24, 1955

Docket11469_1

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 220 F.2d 436 (United States Ex Rel. Audrey Joan Czapkowski v. John W. Holland, District Director of Immigration and Naturalization for the Fourth District) 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

United States Ex Rel. Audrey Joan Czapkowski v. John W. Holland, District Director of Immigration and Naturalization for the Fourth District, 220 F.2d 436, 1955 U.S. App. LEXIS 3361 (3d Cir. 1955).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

In this habeas corpus proceeding to test the validity of a deportation order, it is clear that the Attorney General did not abuse his discretion in determining under 8 U.S.C.A. § 1251(a) (5), Section 241(a) (5) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of June 27, 1952, 66 Stat. 204, that the appellant had not established that her failure to furnish notification of her address “was reasonably excusable or was not willful.”

Nor do we find any merit in the contentions that the above statute lacks sufficiently definite standards to justify deportation and that it is so vague as to be unconstitutional. The tests of reasonableness and willfulness when applied in a statute to a specific act, as they are here, have been held repeatedly by the Supreme Court to be constitutionally valid standards. United States v. Spector, 1952, 343 U.S. 169, 72 S.Ct. 591, 96 L.Ed. 863; United States v. Ragen, 1942, 314 U.S. 513, 62 S.Ct. 374, 86 L.Ed. 383; United States v. Shreveport Grain & Elevator Co., 1932, 287 U.S. 77, 53 S.Ct. 42, 77 L.Ed. 175; Union Bridge Co. v. United States, 1907, 204 U.S. 364, 27 S.Ct. 367, 51 L.Ed. 523. See also Jordan v. De George, 1951, 341 U.S. 223, 231-232, 71 S.Ct. 703, 95 L.Ed. 886.

The order of the district court of October 15, 1954 will be affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

In this habeas corpus proceeding to test the validity of a deportation order, it is clear that the Attorney General did not abuse his discretion in determining under 8 U.S.C.A. § 1251(a) (5), Section 241(a) (5) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of June 27, 1952, 66 Stat. 204, that the appellant had not established that her failure to furnish notification of her address “was reasonably excusable or was not willful.”

Nor do we find any merit in the contentions that the above statute lacks sufficiently definite standards to justify deportation and that it is so vague as to be unconstitutional. The tests of reasonableness and willfulness when applied in a statute to a specific act, as they are here, have been held repeatedly by the Supreme Court to be constitutionally valid standards. United States v. Spector, 1952, 343 U.S. 169, 72 S.Ct. 591, 96 L.Ed. 863; United States v. Ragen, 1942, 314 U.S. 513, 62 S.Ct. 374, 86 L.Ed. 383; United States v. Shreveport Grain & Elevator Co., 1932, 287 U.S. 77, 53 S.Ct. 42, 77 L.Ed. 175; Union Bridge Co. v. United States, 1907, 204 U.S. 364, 27 S.Ct. 367, 51 L.Ed. 523. See also Jordan v. De George, 1951, 341 U.S. 223, 231-232, 71 S.Ct. 703, 95 L.Ed. 886.

The order of the district court of October 15, 1954 will be affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

220 F.2d 436, 1955 U.S. App. LEXIS 3361, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-ex-rel-audrey-joan-czapkowski-v-john-w-holland-district-ca3-1955.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack