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

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit·Decided March 24, 1955·No. 11469_1·Published·Cited by 3 cases

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.

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

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) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related