Andrew Peter Yiannopoulos v. Robert H. Robinson, District Director of Immigration, U. S. Immigration and Naturalization Service
247 F.2d 655
7th Cir.
1957
Check Treatment

*1 of the sense for conclusions common inherent there were

Commission that dis- de and the interest conflicts of facto minority inter- of the enfranchisement the Commission On this record est. exemption grant refusing

justified Oil eliminated Fuel

to Cities until

minority interest. still Commission find that the

Since we and jurisdiction over Cities both comply require Oil to Fuel and can Fuel eliminating 11(b) (2) with § minority interest, sub- since there finding support its stantial voting inequitable distribution of an order

power, the decision affirm we applica- denying the Commission exemption for for Service tion of Cities its subsidiaries itself each Utility Hold- provisions Public

ing Company of 1935. Act YIANNOPOULOS, Plain Peter

Andrew tiff-Appellee, ROBINSON, Director District H.

Robert Immigration Immigration, U. S. Defendant-Ap Service, Naturalization pellant. 11816. No. Tieken, Atty., Robert U. S. and John Court Lulinski, Atty., Peter Asst. U. S. Chi- Circuit. Seventh cago, 111., Chicago, Strugala, Edwin A. Aug. 111., Attys., counsel, U. Asst. S.

appellant. Hatfield,

Pearl M. Hart and Edmund 111., appellee. Chicago, DUFFY, Judge, Before Chief LIND- LEY, Judge, BRIGGLE, Circuit Dis- Judge. trict Judge. LINDLEY, Circuit appeals judgment Defendant from a setting deporta- district court aside against proceedings plaintiff. tion On *2 656 plain- February 1954, 17, by seeking plaintiff a warrant invoked of in review defendant, by deportation 10(e)

tiff’s issued of arrest was order under § Act, of the District Director United the Administrative Procedure 5 U.S. Service, Immigration Shaughnes- 1009(e) proper. and Naturalization C.A. § was charged sy 591, hav- Pedreiro, in which with 48, was v. 349 U.S. 75 S.Ct. ing 868; Brownell, become a member of the Communist 99 L.Ed. Rubinstein v. Party entry subsequent U.S.App.D.C. into 92 328, 449, to his 206 af- F.2d States, 319, in Section 929, violation of firmed 346 L. U.S. 74 United. 241(a) S.Ct. 98 Immigration 421; National- and Ahrens, Cir., Ed. 212 Marcello v. 5 1251(a) ity 830, Act of 8 302, 1952. U.S.C.A. F.2d § affirmed 349 U.S. 75 S.Ct. alien, (6) (i). (C) Plaintiff, a 757, resident 99 L.Ed. 1107. having Greece, is last who, a native of considering presented, we In the issues 1913, has entered the States in are mindful of the admonition to abstain continuously. since here resided presented by from emotional reaction hearings deportation a At the before severity situation, for, empha- as Special Inquiry Officer, paid inform- two by Jackson, sized Mr. in Har- Justice plaintiff’s membership ers testified 580, Shaughnessy, v. isiades 342 U.S. Party. Upon ad- the Communist 587-588, 518, 512, 72 S.Ct. 96 586: L.Ed. counsel, plaintiff vice of refused to be aliens “That remain vulnerable ex- sworn, any questions and or to answer long pulsion practice residence is a testimony relied on char- of several a with But that bristles severities. it is Inquiry acter The witnesses. Officercon- weapon reprisal of defense and confirmed member cluded had “a been by power international a law as inherent * * Party of the Communist of the United every sovereign state On States from Decem- about November or cognizance the other hand we take 1933.”, ber 1929 and to at least the end of necessary the extreme caution and care deported. ordered Board that he be The treating this delicate serious sit- Immigration plain- dismissed Bridges Wixon, As stated uation. v. appeal. tiff’s 1452, 1443, 326 U.S. S.Ct. 65 liberty 89 L.Ed. 2103: “Here the of an August 8, 1955, plaintiff filed his On * * is individual dealing at stake *. areWe asserting complaint court, in the district procedural require- here with deportation in- the order prescribed protection ments urging valid, and inter alia it was Though deportation the alien. not is upon reasonable, not based substantial technically proceeding, a criminal vis- by probative evidence, required great hardship on its a the individual Immigration Nationality Act, 8 right stay deprives him of the 1252(b) (4), U.S.C.A. and that he had § and live and work in this land of free- hearing guaranteed been fair denied a deportation penalty dom. That is a by —at the Due Process Fifth Clause of the times most serious one—cannot be specifi- The Amendment. district court ' n care doubted. Meticulous must be ex- cally hearing found that the was unfair procedure lest the ercised which he process, and did not conform to due “such liberty deprived of that not meet being particularly unfairness shown essential standards of fairness.” See hearing the manner in which the officer Bilokumsky Tod, also, v. objections sustained the Government’s 54, 68 44 S.Ct. L.Ed. 221. proffered by plaintiff over- plaintiff’s objections incompetent ruled that, deportation It is clear in a and immaterial of the Govern- proceeding, a alien resident entitled addition, In ment’s witnesses.” the court guarantees fair be supported by held that order was currently a tribunal which fore meets reasonable, probative substantial and evi- prevailing impartiality. standards dence. Kwong Colding, Hai Chew v. 344 U.S. outset, Wong 576; At the it should be observed L.Ed. Sung Yang procedure is no McGrath, that there doubt that 339 U.S. Among legal that evidence introduced constituted drawing guarantees evidence of the fact or without wrong procedural due inference the evidence. absence would be an process *3 right may, tribunal, notice, error of an administrative the are reasonable flagrant pre- course, testify, witnesses, be so as to convince to examine to by hearing represented witnesses, court that the was not a fair and to be sent Cir., one.” Hyun Landon, 9 219 F. counsel. v. supra. 404; Ahrens, As 2d Marcello v. Hyun Landon, Cir., In v. 9 219 F.2d Supreme pointed in Bilo- the out Court 404, problem a somewhat similar as that 157, kumsky Tod, 149, 44 S. v. presented here confronted the court. 54, 57, 68 221: “To render Ct. L.Ed. There, objected questions the alien had hearing prac- defect, or the unfair the improper which he felt under the were complained of, have been such tice must hearing rules of evidence. officer might justice, have led to a denial of objections. had seriatim his overruled or absent one of there have been argued must It was that officer had ad- the due essential the elements deemed process.” incompetent mitted a mass of evidence As we said United fatally hearing. corrupted which the In Cir., Schlimmgen Jordan, 164 ex rel. v. 7 reply (219 page the court stated F.2d at may inter- F.2d not 407): 634: “Courts “It would seem clear that the ac- determinations fere with administrative hearing rejecting tion of the officer in record, proceedings unless, upon the the appellant’s objections all of motions and unfair, manifestly were or substantial was not process and of a denial itself of due support evidence administrative showing the law, without that finding lacking, has error of law objections or taken, were well and that reflects evidence been committed or the actually action resulted in a denial also manifest abuse of See discretion.” process.” due Cir., Crossman, 5 F.2d Kielema v. 103 scrupulous However, after exam record, ination of the we conclude that considering plaintiff’s specifically, plain objections In most were well by incompe mass of tiff’s averments that a founded that the admission of a incompetent, tent and was intro mass and hear irrelevant irrelevant though proper say observed, objection, parentheti evidence, duced cally, form was over it should that was denied substance of a be observed it is ac hearing. go cepted doctrine strict common There is no need to that the fair lengths describing great apply law rules of evidence do not to an multitude hearing rulings presented by ad erroneous administrative that the Indeed, incompetent attempt mission of such an would irrelevant record. misleading, for, previously stated, error, matter is not reversible if be ordinary is substantial rules evidence are not evidence sustain the de generally agency. Rather, adhered to. cision of the Navarrette-Navar it is the justice Landon, Cir., 234; impels rette denial of v. 9 223 F.2d overall which our Impostato say, that, United States ex rel. v. conclusion. Suffice it to with O’Rourke, 609; Cir., evidence, 8 F.2d the admission of 211 out this it Sisto Board, least, highly U.S.App. is, v. Civil 86 Aeronautics at uncertain whether Jung finding 47; Haff, Special Inquiry D.C. 179 F.2d Sam v. Of Cir., Hays 384; Zahariades, 9 116 F.2d v. would have been made. ficer It is on Cir., And, 3 90 F.2d 3. as stated in basis that we conclude Tisi that hearing Tod, 131, 133, thought v. 264 44 U.S. was unfair. line of This support language 590: “the denial of finds a fair the Su hearing Bridges proving Wixon, preme is not established Court merely wrong. the decision was U.S. * * * equally corpus This is true 2103: “In these habeas whether L.Ed. deciding the error wrongly prove proceedings consists in the alien does not he hearing merely by proving portation proceedings, had an unfair Communist * * * wrong government Syrakis, or the decision to be trials. other by showing incompetent witness, numer- likewise testified * * * hearings. addition, least

was admitted and considered. ous In it is at worthy witnesses But the where evidence of notation that both ease is different relating improperly but oc- were and where circumstances received before, wholly specula- twenty years curred over that evidence finding requisite witness he had would Nowell admitted that tive whether deporta- date of seen 1934 until the have been made. Then there is tion *4 (Emphasis without a supplied.) fair [*] [*] met plaintiff Nowell stated 1929 at a meeting he first at lo- Club the Educational Greek Workers Furthermore, that, conclude we on just off in Detroit cated Street Gratiot us, the order basis of the record before meeting so “closed” was that supported by is is not which evidence Party only members that Communist reasonable, probative of substantial and testi- is additional could attend. There course, the issue. Of aware we are mony closed that he saw at other scope the narrow which of review within meetings to several times recognize operate we that mat- must hand, that is clear 1933. On the it credibility other properly are for the ters meetings plaintiff many he saw times at However, pointed trier of the facts. as Fur- which were to not closed outsiders. of New out in Edison Consolidated Co. specific ther, as to B., N. R. York v. L. 305 U.S. meetings vague to as is and indefinite 206, 217, 83 L.Ed. 126: “sub- place whether or and as to time specific meetings a stantial evidence is more than mere plaintiff attend- which scintilla. It means such evi- relevant identify- And, open might accept ed were or closed. dence as a reasonable mind ing present meet- persons various at the adequate support a conclusion.” as named although ings, those Further, up that Nowell admitted it is the trial opposed to best, as those he knew were tribunal to resolve the of testi- conflict Syra- actually present. emphasized mony, nevertheless, were as in those who B., Workers Corp. the Greek kis testified that Universal Camera v. N. L. R. Street move to the Gratiot did not Club 71 S.Ct. time until well substantiality location “The 456: Syrakis Further, Nowell. identified evidence take what- must into account closed at a fairly that saw stated he ever in the record detracts from meeting it weight.” 1935 when court, Communist its Camera, The Universal plain- already that page had been established 340 U.S. at longer mem- no a “Congress page 465, at that time tiff at mere- added: has Syrakis ly went reviewing Then party. ber made it clear that court state, attempt explain the setting on in an is barred from aside Board complete discrepancy, contradiction decision when cannot conscientious- Nowell, ly that ex- as of supporting well find that himself the evidence party meet- could attend closed substantial, members decision when viewed merely ings light plaintiff had been and that that the record in entire- its meeting. ty furnishes, including for the body borrowed evi- opposed dence to the Board’s view.” Syrakis Finally, swore that as Secre- Briefly, tary the record Political he discloses No- of the Greek Bureau government's including well, party one of the records salaried access had witnesses, who, high membership plaintiff’s at one time held a lists and that position Party in the Communist in De- was on the list. No such list was name troit, plaintiff, the former home produced. It is obvious that ever such professional nothing pure acted as a witness in a mul- more than hear- evidence Congressional hearings, say. receipt titude of type de- It is the of this of evi- high- condemned is to be which dence may render ly prejudicial Wixon, Bridges su- unfair. pra. findings agreement with are in We only was that not court of the district reasonable, substantial

there a want support or- probative plaintiff was deportation, der of but not afforded a fair judgment is affirmed. Judge (dissent-

BHIGGLE, District

ing). carefully Tran- I studied have Proceedings Special script *5 before Immigration and Inquiry Officer case, and in this Service

Naturalization unalterably to the conclusion I led am substantial evidence there was

that support findings of the administrative law, requiring no- fact; no error of committed; Court, tice record the that on the whole examiner) (respondent before

here Feeling had a fair justice to the no denial of

has been respectfully from the

plaintiff, I dissent by my associates.

conclusion reached ex

UNITED STATES of America rel. Clyde ROOSA,Petitioner-Appellant, MARTIN, B. Warden of Attica Walter Prison, Respondent-Appellee. Haven, Conn., Bittker, I. New Boris No. Docket 24407. petitioner-appellant. Court of Lefkowitz, Atty. Gen., New Louis J. Second Circuit. (James City Moore, Jr., 0. Sol. York 11,1957. Argued April Freyberg Gen., and Lawrence H. Michael Aug. 16, Attys. Gen., Rogovin, Deputy Decided Asst. New City, counsel), respondent-

York appellee. CLARK, Judge, Chief Before HINCKS,
MEDINA, LUMBARD and Judges. WATERMAN, Circuit