TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Brownell, Atty. Gen. v. Gutnayer

Brownell, Atty. Gen. v. Gutnayer, 212 F.2d 462 (D.C. Cir. 1954)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided
April 22, 1954
Docket
No. 11733_1
Judges
Edgerton, Prettyman, Washington
Citations
212 F.2d 46294 U.S. App. D.C. 901954 U.S. App. LEXIS 3390

Opinion — Edgerton

EDGERTON, Circuit Judge.

Section 4 of the Displaced Persons Act of 1948, 62 Stat. 1011 , as amended, 64 Stat. 224 , 66 Stat. 277 , 50 U.S.C.A. Appendix, § 1953, provides that “a displaced person residing in the United States” may apply to the Attorney General for an adjustment of his immigration status, and that “if the Attorney General shall, upon consideration of all the facts and circumstances of the case, determine that such alien has been of good moral character for the preceding five years and that such alien is qualified under the provisions of this section, the Attorney General shall report to the Congress all of the pertinent facts in the case.” The term “displaced person residing in the United States” is defined, in substance, as a person who establishes “that he lawfully entered the United States as a non-immigrant”, that he is displaced because of events subsequent to the outbreak of World War II, and that he cannot return home because of racial, religious, or political persecution.

It appears without dispute that appel-lee was admitted to the United States on January 25, 1946 as an accredited official of a foreign government, and that the Attorney General has denied adjustment of his immigration status on the ground that he entered the United States unlaw *464 fully in that at the time of his entry he intended to remain here permanently. In this suit, appellee asks a declaratory judgment that he is eligible for relief under the Displaced Persons Act and that he cannot be denied adjustment of status on the ground that he entered the United States unlawfully. The Attorney General appeals from a judgment “that the matter shall be referred back to the Attorney General for a consideration of all the facts and circumstances relevant to the status of the plaintiff under the Displaced Persons Act, but that plaintiff shall not be denied adjustment of status as a displaced person upon the sole ground that he entered the United States unlawfully.”

Appellee’s intention to remain permanently in the United States did not make it unlawful for him to enter the United States “as a non-immigrant” on being duly admitted as an accredited official of a foreign government under § 3 of the Immigration Act of 1924, 43 Stat. 154 , as then amended, 54 Stat. 711 .

1

Cf. United States v. Prince Line, 2 Cir., 1951, 189 F.2d 386 . And the Attorney General’s discretion under the Displaced Persons Act is subject to judicial review for plain error of law. Cf. McGrath v. Kristensen, 340 U.S. 162 , 71 S.Ct. 224 , 95 L.Ed. 173 ; United States ex rel. Accardi, v. Shaughnessy, 347 U.S. 260 , 74 S.Ct. 499 . However, we think the final clause of the appealed judgment should provide only that the plaintiff is not to be denied adjustment of status as a displaced person upon the theory that an intention to remain permanently in the United States made his entry unlawful.

Judgment modified and affirmed.

1

. Now 8 U.S.C.A. § 1101 (a) (15) (A).

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 14 cases

View all citing references →
1954: 11955: 11956: 21957: 11958: 11960: 11963: 11971: 11973: 11976: 11978: 11982: 11997: 119542026peak 1956 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Hou Ching Chow v. Attorney General362 F. Supp. 1288 (D.D.C. 1973)
  2. Hector Manuel Reyes v. Marcus T. Neely, District Director, Immigration and Naturalization Service, El Paso District228 F.2d 609 (5th Cir. 1956)
  3. Brownell v. Stjepan Bozo Carija254 F.2d 78 (D.C. Cir. 1957)
  4. BARRIOS10 I. & N. Dec. 172 (BIA 1963)
  5. Grace Line, Inc. v. Panama Canal Co.143 F. Supp. 539 (S.D.N.Y. 1956)
  6. Elkins v. Moreno435 U.S. 647 (1978)

Most recent

  1. Hein v. Arkansas State University972 F. Supp. 1175 (E.D. Ark. 1997)
  2. Bustamante v. Bustamante645 P.2d 40 (Utah 1982)
  3. Elkins v. Moreno435 U.S. 647 (1978)
  4. Seihoon v. Levy408 F. Supp. 1208 (M.D. La. 1976)
  5. Hou Ching Chow v. Attorney General362 F. Supp. 1288 (D.D.C. 1973)
  6. Williams v. Williams328 F. Supp. 1380 (D.V.I. 1971)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 3

DepthCaseCited by
McGrath v. Kristensen, 340 U.S. 162 (1950) 197
United States ex rel. Accardi v. Shaughnessy, 347 U.S. 260 (1954) 1,379
United States v. Prince Line, Ltd., 189 F.2d 386 (2d Cir. 1951) 11

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list