*2 August 11, been him on issued to Wunsch, Faulkner, William C. Sheehan Immigration The Order Board Wiseman, Stiller, & Norman San Fran- Appeals indicates Consul “[t]he cisco, Cal., petitioner. passport marked his ‘Cancelled’ and told Cecil Poole, Atty., F. U. S. Charles reentry permit elapsed him his Collett, Atty., Elmer Asst. U. S. San nothing there was he could do for him.” Francisco, Cal., respondent. (Tr. 3.) Petitioner returned Ma- to his BARNES, Before POPE and Circuit steps farm, kati rice took no Judges, THOMPSON, District to obtain to the United States Judge. 1952, unsuccessfully regis- until when he entry quota tered in Manila for Judge: BARNES, Circuit system. petition This is a to review a final May 2, 1962, On entered deportation. order of Jurisdiction lies Philippine passport States with with this court under U.S.C. 1105a temporary under a visitor’s visa. This 1031-1042; and 5 U.S.C. Foti v. Im- §§ visa authorized him to remain migration Serv., and Naturalization only July 31, country 1962, on until but 217, 306, U.S. 84 S.Ct. 11 L.Ed.2d 286 stay validly application, his extended (1963). 31, January 1963. Petitioner leading The events this order of de- mained in after the United States portation developed expiration been visitor’s visa. of his extended proceedings Special 1963, petitioner conducted 17, In- On June was served quiry Immigra- why Office and the Board with both an order to show cause Appeals. deported is a national of he should not from the coun- Philippine 10, try hearing Islands. On March and a order notice of 1926, lawfully August arrived July 26, the United 1963. On permanent States and Special Inquiry undertook resi- Officer rendered continually dence. He ordering deportation. resided thereafter decision Petition- Immigration 13, 1946, the United appeal States until June er’s Board of to the departed when Philippines. Appeals for the was dismissed October regulation ment, petition viz., drafted for review the and this pursuant followed. contained decision final administrative (b). regulation provides Section 211 Initially, apparent from rec it is pertinent part: proceedings ord the administrative lawfully previously dispute impro ad- is no as to the alien “[A]n that there priety *3 per- petitioner’s presence in mitted the United States for of this to upon January 31, 1963, up who, country return based manent residence after temporary May 2, entry. less un a absence Petitioner his of year, deniably than be- ex one excludable violated the terms of his present cause failure to have or to tended visa. In the absence of of visitor’s immigrant leading visa, passport, any compelling re- to a a valid entry factors con crossing card, trary conclusion, petitioner’s permit, of border violation required supports or at the his visa the administra other document visitor’s granted may entry, deportation. a time be tive decision of requirement in of such waiver contends, however, al- Petitioner director, or discretion of the district though may have acted violation deportation proceedings in the visa, en- terms of visitor’s is special inquiry offi- of the discretion permanent titled to residence Unit- ** 242.7a. cer § C.F.R. ed under the Section added.) (Emphasis Immigration 211(b) Nation- Act, 1181(b). ality pro- 8 U.S.C. § left the Petitioner United States in permits vision readmission certain country June 1946. He reentered the necessary aliens without documenta- May any In miti the absence of provides: tion. gating factor, the above reasonable and regulation seemingly authorized preclude “Notwithstanding provisions any discretionary relief under 1182(a) (20) title, section this 211(b) .1 Thus for Section issues our or in such cases such classes cases (1) resolve to consideration themselves may and under such conditions as any mitigating invites factor whether regulations by prescribed, be other- one-year waiver limitation for lawfully wise admissible aliens ad- “temporary” under 8 C.F.R. § absences permanent mitted for residence who grounds 242.7a, (2) any whether depart from the United States tem- require exist may be porarily to readmitted permanent notwith afforded standing residence Attorney Gen- nonpossession docu being eral in his discretion without permanent mentation for required residence. passport, to obtain a immi- grant visa, reentry permit or other reviewing In the administrative documentation.” any legal record to determine whether deporta Petitioner seeks to utilize this cause for statu- exists reversal tory provision discretionary order, to mind at secure we should all re- bear Attorney expertise superior ad lief General. He in- times the agency sists that his actions we are return to the United ministrative whose time, temporary departure, upon in 1962 from a called to review. At same against guard required 211(b). be on Section Peti- we must forever obstacle, tendency function tioner faces a abdicate our formidable how- to ever, attempting argu- merely rubber-stamp the administrative to sustain this require- 211(b) provides readmission to Section ficer the discretion waive *** necessary only return without “who documentation for those ments temporary than of less “in such cases or in * * * of cases absence such classes regulations, regulations pre- year.” additional one Absent op- only only group granted regulation prescribed scribed.” The limited this discretionary 211(b) gives portunity apply to § that which inquiry special district director or of- lief. disposition. upon lawfully We are not called admitted to the United fact-finding powers permanent substitute our States for residence.” agency, those but rather insure There be no can doubt time against upon inadequate decisions based petitioner appeared before the findings, findings contrary law, or Consul, qualified he was for readmission regard proper reached without to the United States under Section 1281. prescribed procedural requirements. rely upon thus did not Chenery Securities & Exch. Comm’n v. reentry permit, expired, ex- Corp., 318 U.S. 63 S.Ct. L. ercise his readmission. hold- (1943), Ed. 626 332 U.S. 67 S.Ct. ing apply U.S.C. 1281 did not (1947). 91 L.Ed. 1995 petitioner, immigration authorities error; clearly were is admitted holdWe the record before us in *4 by respondents Acting in this action. this case is insufficient to enable us to de- significant misconception under this at discretionary termine whether or manda- petitioner’s hearing, hearing

tory the officer petitioner. relief is available to In specific findings respect made no particular, to we find the administrative petitioner’s alleged the content of grossly con- inadequate record in its account versation with the American Consul. transpired of meeting what at the be- rejecting petitioner’s allegations of petitioner af- tween and the American Con- firmative misstatements Philippines sul by,the for the in late 1947 or Special Inquiry only early Officer stated 1948. toDue the mistaken notion that: petitioner that qualify did not for non- quota immigrant “During status U.S.C. proceedings, carefully I Special Inquiry both the § Officer respondent, observed the and feel Immigration Appeals and the Board of testimony that his does not neces- only superficially dealt with the events of sarily represent the truth.” attempt petitioner that unsuccessful Immigration Appeals The Board of was gain to readmission to the United States. finding more detailed in its somewhat part provides U.S.C. as fol- that: lows: passport “The marked Consul his “(a) Any Philippines citizen of the reentry and told him his ‘Cancelled’ actually who resided United permit elapsed was and there period States for a continuous nothing he could do for him.” years during period three Believing the Consul that was correct in forty-two ending months November informing petitioner directly —whether 30, 1941, entering the United way impliedly no there —that during period July gain could readmission to 4, 1946, July 3, 1951, to both dates States, Special Inquiry Officer and inclusive, purpose for the resum- Immigration Appeals the Board ing States, residence the United findings no make reason further shall, purposes for the of the immi- meeting transpired what between gration laws, be a non- considered petitioner * * and Consul. immigrant quota *. “(b) transpired After such as a non- what admission If at meet immigrant quota shall, ing for the he immigration between the American

purposes way basis for Consul could be setting laws, deportation, naturalization be considered aside the order promulgated 2. to avoid were aliens of the This statute resident any hardships given period time, have resulted who were over a but quota system imposition at absent United States independence, gain Filipinos Philippine after declaration of date of independence July Philippine on a readmission non-quota permitted Filipinos provision who status. voluntary findings departure would aid adequate his make failure making necessary applica- There would wife harmless be error. would legal reentry. The third tion for for us to remand no need then be deporta- circuit, however, staying petitioner’s findings. appears, It further departure order, ignored petitioner’s peti- would be available relief findings complied five- possible and held that he with the tioner under certain stage year presence requirement. court The function at this not our fact. speculate held: proceedings on the significance legal possible set of of each that when it can be “It would seem findings relating inquiries petitioner’s convincingly fundamental shown ripe, for Manila. at occasion prior errors been committed in example, for this court to determine * * *, proceedings and where a finding consequences a factual litigant holding the individual merely told the Consul of his bound the failures expired, said visa had or of involved counsel the officials nothing concerning possible more miscarriage gross result in a would reentry. Rather, court methods of justice, proceedings should such remand for further to de- must reopened appropriate correc- any give termine if set facts would measures taken.” Id. at tive deportation rise to a reversal of the or- case at contends bar We hold that der. *5 eligible holding precedent in McLeod is for relief under at one that the least set findings, viz., that, of is if it shown proposition petitioner for was the actually reasonably was and misled Con American in fact misadvised the the affirmative of acts misstatements 1948, early his re in late or sul 1947 the American Consul. To hold to the entry a re in 1962 considered should be contrary if this in is fact what trans- “temporary” entry from a absence. Pe deny any pired, and form of relief from that his order of thus contends titioner deportation, the order of would result stayed pending deportation an should be punishment poorly-educated the aof alien Attorney apply opportunity to the for pre- his reliance on of the advice a discretionary for under General relief sumptively well-informed official of the 1181(b). not the or U.S.C. Whether § United States Government. This we holding petitioner assist McLeod would improper. would deem pri doubt, a matter of considerable extensively

Petitioner his marily of relies even at time on the because the opinion meeting third alleged circuit American Con McLeod v. with the Peter- son, (1960) Manila, petitioner 283 F.2d 180 outside as had been sul in averting injustice. eighteen case, such an In for about States United the petitioner’s application Although very suspension months, the least. of deportation regulation prescribing a jeopardized by was order administrative “temporary” requirement one-year his failure to de meet maximum for a the years’ 1181(b) presence five continuous parture was 8 U.S.C. within § (8 United States. 242.7a in 1948 C.F.R. not in effect § would have complied 1961), residency in requirement promulgated not with the it eighteen petitioner’s it not been for the erroneous advice conceivable immigration he was time absence before the naturalization month service, allegedly pe- advice which had misadvised resulted prior departure period titioner’s considered a Consul would be United incorrectly States. The to be con service duration so as not in- sufficient meaning petitioner eligi- “temporary” formed within was not sidered interpreta- nonquota status, 1181(b).3 ble for an him of Such and advised Section Trudell, widely disparate F.2d 3. As an v. indication of the see States United Trudell, Serpico (2d 1931); “temporary,” v. views what constitutes Cir. “temporary” Army would return tion of the word fore- ordered to Swiss any discretionary Battalion, mobilizing against close from an ex- pected 1940, German In relief. attack. October Moser returned the United on States necessary, do not consider how We regi- leave absence his Swiss holding ever, to decide whether registered ment. He soon thereafter un- holding justifies present McLeod Training der the Selective and Service oppor case that 1940, amended, Act of 50 U.S.C.A. Attorney tunity avail himself App. seq. 301 et discretionary relief on the General’s I-A, In Moser was reclassified ground departure petitioner’s immediately available service. He only “temporary.” sought Lega- the assistance of the Swiss speculating appro than Rather securing tion in a deferment under holding priateness of the McLeod Treaty terms of 1850 between the case, present facts we find United States Switzerland which reasoning in McLeod provided that: Supreme United Court in Moser “The citizens of one two coun- States, 341 U.S. S.Ct. tries, residing or established (1951) 95 L.Ed. 729 makes it manifest other, personal shall be free from that we should remand further ad * * military service findings. Certainly, ministrative de portation mani requesting a deferment under festly unjust possessed where Treaty, however, terms Moser statutory authority to reenter request feared the effect if in fact he did pending application for United States pursue jus because aof citizenship. 3(a) of Under Section upon tifiable reliance a misstatement of Training Act, Selective and Service a United States Government official. amended, a neutral who alien claimed ex- Congress unequivocally permitted certain emption was to be thereafter debarred *6 Filipinos, Tejeda one, of whom non- becoming from a United States citizen. quota immigrant July 4, 1946 from status Legation up The Swiss took the matter through July properly If Department which, with the State after developed findings pe factual reveal that thorough consideration, decided titioner made a fide effort bona to re Training Selective Service Act of and enter 1947 or 1948 and failed to obtain deny 1940 was not intended na- Swiss reentry due to the misadvice of the any rights privileges or tionals conferred respondents American should by Treaty. 1850 them The State precluded denying from Department that, thus advised notwith- rightly what was as a non- his — standing language 3(a), Section quota immigrant or 1948 1947 filing exemption mili- claim from 22 U.S.C. 1281. tary friendly by service non-declarant operate aliens like Moser should not case, above, The Moser alluded to a waiver or forfeiture of naturalization ample authority necessity aof rights. pres- remand for further case, petitioner ent case. In that first on for ex- a When case came hearing, native Switzerland and who had Serv- tensive the Naturalization en- argued that, pursuant 3(a), tered the United in 1937 and to Section had ice petitioned rights for naturalization natural- March had waived his Moser 11, 1940, May by exemption 1938. On before action ization his claim of completed petition, military had been on his bureau Moser American service. The (2d Day, 1928); Lesto 21 F.2d 307 46 F.2d 669 Cir. States ex rel. v. Davis, McCandless, 1927); (2d ex Lidonnici v. 57 rel. Alther Cir. (3d (1926). 1931); App.D.C. 36, 46 F.2d Cir. 16 F.2d 532 “ already indicated, s what State we have be- “that no matter our [A] asserted signed applica- Department bureau fore service selective law, exemption, done, Moser, he had had tion asserted had as matter naturalized, right exemption without to become de- waived citizenship. though In specific barment re- even intention to though sponse contrary proved and and claims even government agencies others, acquiescence, apparent had in- and in sign Department had ‘waiver’ while our of State ar- him to duced they completely ranged procedure in erroneous a revised were under claiming express exemption. law Petition The notion of what the was.” (E.D.N.Y. citizenship Moser, F.Supp. been de- waiver had Kennedy, J., sought 1949). court, infor- district leted. Petitioner argument high- accept guidance and the could not this mation and injustice sought turn, to evoke: est he could sign Revised and was advised Depart- “[Ajssuming the State Form 301. He was led to believe egregious error, con- made an ment thereby lose his would not by Selective Service curred rights citizenship. he had If Legation, Bureau the Swiss not have he would known otherwise see can cannot how that be translated justifiable exemption. In claimed by im- into a waiver Moser of an signed the liance on this advise portant privilege, no what matter Legation. by papers him sent to signed upon the advice these re- at 556] U.S. at S.Ct. [341 agencies. sponsible words, In other . ***** Treaty if the was in- even Swiss tended to be broken those who en- need to evaluate these “There Training any acted Selective on the basis circumstances 1940, I Act find as a fact Service or the estoppel of the Government Legation there was a waiver of never to bind power of the Swiss naturalization Moser that the advice to its petition granted.” should F. know- petitioner. did Supp. at 685. intentionally ingly waive citizenship. fact, rights be- disagreed circuit, however, The second misleading circumstanc- cause of the Judge Kennedy, and reversed the op- case, an he never es of doing, district court decision. In so intelligent elec- portunity to make court, Chase, J., circuit held diametrically op- between the *7 government estopped not en- from required a matter posed as courses enforcing provisions the of the Selective Considering all the law. of strict debarring citizenship Service Act from case, we think of the circumstances seeking military exemption an alien nothing petitioner, less to bar Cir., Moser, service. Petition of 182 required intelligent waiver is an than (1950). F.2d 734 elementary Johnson fairness. Supreme United Court States, 197 [63 318 U.S. circuit, the versed second and reinstated To hold L.Ed. 704] S.Ct. the decision of the district court. The peti- entrap to would be otherwise language Supreme opinion, of the Court S.Ct. at at 341 U.S. tioner.” Minton, J., persuasive is proposition petitioner the stay deportation present the case entitled to have his de- therefore We proceedings portation if, upon remand, remand the order vacated findings con- findings the administrative administrative reveal further opinion. we govern- have What he was with this misadvised American sistent as be taken is not or inferred to ment officials: stated any indication that proceedings should or the for further administra- deported. findings should not be opin- tive consistent with this ion.” Judge POPE, (concurring sepa- Circuit entirely to clear reason some For rately) . purpose discuss- me, perhaps for the entirely I am in accord with court’s the ing problems arise con- which other disposition this case and with the es- of aliens who with the admission nection holdings opinion. I sential of the file States, departed have separate opinion I this reasons. two regulation opinion a the discusses think that the matters to be considered Immigration relating 211(b) of the upon re- the administrative officials 1181(b), Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § fully mand been have not defined as opinion notes, regulation which, they might I be. think also that some 1948, the date which was not effect portions opinion of the are demon- Clearly it is not material here. strably obiter dictum. necessary any express view tome might concerning opin- I I wish to make it clear that it is not which have regulation necessary for me to dicta since discuss these ion’s discussion they regu- portion as it can be have no of that demonstrated that is obvious that light bearing, way another, upon of the one lation is material here opin- holding quoted I outcome of case. this The court’s of the court which “petitioner above, ion itself so indicates. the effect that bona in 1947 made a fide effort to reenter plain First I make it what I consider reentry or 1948 and failed to due obtain court,— decision actual Consul, to the misadvice of American heartily agree. a decision which I respondents precluded should may by quotation be indicated four denying petitioner rightly what opinion short extracts from the as fol- —reentry immigrant non-quota as a lows: can be no “There doubt at 1947 or 1948 under U.S.C. 1281.” petitioner appeared the time before the holding saying At least amounts to Consul, qualified American he was for re- petition- that under those circumstances admission to the United discretionary er would be entitled to the Section 1281. did not thus sought. relief which he has rely upon reentry permit, have to Proceeding expired, my then to exercise his reason for writing separate particular, opinion, readmission.” “In I we find wish to note grossly opinion inadequate record administrative discussions of contains legal in its transpired questions account what certain at arise meeting findings possible between and the Amer- under certain body. ican Philippines general, Consul for the administrative late find early 1947 or properly 1948.” no fault with the “If the inclusion such mat developed kind, opinion factual reveal ters for when petitioner made a bona fide case such as effort to re- this must be remanded for making enter in findings, per 1947 or 1948 and failed to obtain and it fectly plain due misadvice what ultimate issues are judicial respondents be, orderly should it makes for ad *8 precluded be denying petitioner fully from ministration to set forth view our rightly reentry and, what was aas non- the law in that to of the case his — quota immigrant connection, in 1947 or 1948 what the indicate conse stay findings quences U.S.C. 1281.” “We of certain neces therefore must deportation petitioner the sarily of and remand be.1 suppose 1. To ordering illustrate: that the review- to court the remand for the ing (a) body court knows on remand the trial fact if the trial finds state that body may (a) holding find either fact fact in favor or then the must be to exist (b). obviously appropriate appealing party; It would if be but the court Tejeda disposition in in Court resided the made the The remanding years reversing of he left the decision States for before Magenau Philippines. passport v. Aetna in the His discloses a lower court following reentry per- 273, receipt Freight Lines, 79 S.Ct. of his 360 U.S. type Tejeda Hong Kong April the mit on illustrates reached 3 L.Ed.2d referring. I procedure I in which am 1946 and admitted Manila on of to following 1946; July 8, quite from in accord with the hence was absent am he July 4, Teje- opinion as what would to the the statement two-day trip consequences of certain a be the da testified that it was might on remand: “Cer went see be made which he took when he to the tainly, deportation petitioner be would at Manila from town at Consul' home him, said, manifestly unjust possessed the He he where Makati. statutory authority passport the United to reenter seaman’s which received in hearing. did He in fact showed this 1947 or evidence Consul; justi pursue passport a not the Consul cut because upon passport aof a misstatement and marked fiable reliance the corner testimony Tejeda’s official.” then United States Government it “Cancelled”. proceeds “You him as follows: asked my this decision is com- view not get you to how—that wanted to back the up- plete some further comment without Yes, I A. I told him like United States ? may happen remand on what on the go States, but he to the United back assume, I have which we ordered. go any said ‘You your entry more because cannot course, the dis- that it would be within Q. already.’ elapsed is Did hearing cretion of officer to receive the your Reentry you back Permit ? hand testimony. or On new additional A. Yes.” testimony may possibly hand such forthcoming evidence, passport, not because no other tes- here does timony If no or available. cut and it does show that evidence show corner received, testimony stamp additional with a rubber was cancelled pos- previously points page impressed record made each which may present sibility Conceivably passport. 'that there have been a such rubber circumstances, pur- stamp mentioned set of ordered made could be Judge opinion, would en- Barnes’ would be in Manila but such chased Tejeda sug- height improbability. title to relief. All opinion conse- in- no comment that “it is not makes the effect finding (b) exist, petitioner’s eighteen quences al- fact conceivable necessarily perceives though court absence the time he was months before finding, allegedly then if the the American that such misadvised body finding period makes fact trial such would be considered Consul finding (b) an im- from that con- and draws duration so as not to be sufficient result, permissible ‘temporary’ meaning or conclusion sidered within the interpreta- 1181(b). should be one that sultant error would of Section Such ‘temporary’ been avoided. fore- have word any discretionary close exception ad- to certain 1 would take noted, previously As relief.” I have opinion which, visory comments in the these comments are irrelevant view related, previously the reasons holding opinion find- if the bearing upon have no the real issues ings. reveal “that made a bona at one real decision this case. Thus fide effort to reenter place opinion states “Petitioner faces gain reentry misad- failed due however, obstacle, in at- a formidable respond- vice of tempting argument” to sustain this precluded denying ents should be returning temporary he was from a de- rightly what was parture, regulation his — *9 because the 1961 nonquota immigrant Again previously as a in 1947 or referred I find to. fault advisory speculative suggestion with the 1948 under 22 U.S.C. 1281.” § gests Tejeda war, highly went to see unlikely and it is that a Filipino at the cancellation occurred Philippine would have left the by stamp was affixed time and for Islands the United States after No- 30, Consul himself. vember 1941. The fact that he had passport an American under these cir- Teje- suggests also This evidence suggest plainly cumstances would probably that he get attempting da was back qualify did on the basis States, that he saw Consul residence in the United States three inquiry end to that and that reason years preceding 30, November 1941. naturally occur made would to the Consul Certainly special hear- time. at that ing Tejeda’s testimony correct, If he might an in- draw officer well such get told the Consul he wanted to back to actually Tejeda’s state- and credit ference my the United States. view it would go ment “I told him like to back perfectly proper finding be a here that United States.” Tejeda the Consul told that he could not unlikely most Also it would be return to falsely the United States either Tejeda’s passport arrival cancelled was inquiry or without ap due toas the facts July at at Manila on plicable Tejeda.4 It remains then to reentry permit time valid he still had his determine whether such course con and no occasion for cancella there was duct the Consul would amount to a hearing officer then. The would Tejeda duty depriving breach unlikely cancellation oc to assume would rights him Philippine of his under the Tejeda May ob cur about when Act. Trade visa, especially since tained his visitor’s is difficult to understand what a produce made to effort was provide consulate is not to infor testimony point.3 Consul for on this The precisely mation under these circums would circumstance of cancellation previously tances.5 We have noted that Tejeda’s presence indicate the con at duty of consular officers familiarize Tejeda sulate at he the time testified immigration themselves with the laws went there. he saw the Consul the If visas, (footnote 4, supra). It is in is, inquiry why natural did see the requirement conceivable that such a Consul? What did want ? except assumption would be made on the hearing might officer have well that the consul would make use of that knew, found that consular officer knowledge knowledge use know, Tejeda had reason to was dealing persons in need of in probably eligible for admission under the regarding Philippine immigration, formation passport, Trade Act. The passport, say, seeking to him issued is to aliens to come to the August 11, during 1943. That was United States. (Mc- McCormick, 3. As stated Tejeda Mr. approached 5. When the Consul he Evidence, p. 533) Cormick on possession “When pass- was in seaman’s of a port. would be natural the circum- He had a seaman on served as party particular exclusively stances for a to call ships throughout * ** so, witness Army transports and he fails do He the war. served on adversary may convoys use this failure as all the time in the Atlantic invoking Africa, basis for an adverse inference.” Pacific South to North America, Australia New Guinea. consul, (not regulations (22 existing a “consular the then Under agent”). foreign 110.1) probably He one of those came within § C.F.R. required regula- acquired service officers the class of “aliens who (Foreign Regulations, tions Service and maintained the character of American 108.1) regulations, C.F.R. § “familiarize them- seamen.” Under the then existing selves statutes, with the laws on the sub- as under a consular well ject immigration special obligations and visas.” owed ofiicer to such seamen. See 22 § C.S.R.1949 110.6 ed.. and 46 U.S.C. *10 was a man with a record twen- Here years

ty continuous residence States; has a man who served during days of hazardous

a seaman convoys; man who was and a war returning the assistance denied right owed him As noted States Consul. Peterson, Cir., 283 McLeod v. F.2d “ * * * dealing are we

especially indi- critical and fundamental right,” and, as in that case

vidual stated argument

also, yield to the that this duty breach Tejeda is not sufficient entitle relief, “would be become operation ‘bootstrap’

party means

of which officers of the United States error, however,

seek to turn own their

innocent, into a bar the assertion right by very victim this error.”

(p. 187)

NEW ENGLAND ELECTRIC SYSTEM al., Petitioners, et

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COM- Respondent. MISSION,

No. 6332. Appeals

United States Court of

First Circuit.

Heard Jan.

Decided June