MATTE Ro r Z 

### I n DEPORTATIO N Proceeding s

A-4420140 Decide d b

y Boar d October

SS , 185 8 Crim e Involvin g mora l turpitude—Sectio n 241(a)(4 ) o f th e 195 2 act—'-Singl e scheme " not

establishe d wher e crime s violatin g identica l statut e wer e sepa rat e episode s i n continuin g crimina l plan . Slngleschejn e o

f crimina l misconduc t

withi n meanin g o

f sectio n 243(a ) (4 ) o

f th e 105 2 ac t

is'no t establishe d wher e responden t ha s been convicte d o

n tw o count s o f an indictmen t

for defraudin g th e Government o f ta x o n tw o sepa rat e occasion s with respec t t o separat e Quantitie s o f alcoho l i n violatio n o

f 2 9 U.S.O

T S821 . Conviction s whic h ar e th e resul t of separat e episode s ar e no t par t o f "singl e scheme " ove

n thoug h th e episode s occur pursuan t

t o a continuin g crimina l pla n o r conspiracy . (Se e not e at . en d o f decision. ) CHARGE : Order ; Ac t

o f 1952—Sectio

n 241(a)(4 ) [ 8 L'.S.C

- 1251(a ) (4)]—Convicte d o f tw o Crime

ainvolvin g mora

l turpitude : Inten t

t o defrau d th e Unite d State s er

f ta x (tw o offenses) .

. BEFOR

E TH E BOAR

D 

### Discussion : Thi s i s a

n appea l fro mth e order

o f th e sj3eci.i

l in

quir y office r finding th e respondent

deportabl e o

n the

- groun d state d above an d denyin g hi s applicatio n fo r discretion/tr

y relief . Th e appea l -wil l be dismissed . ^Respondent

, a56-year-ol d roamed male , anativ e an d citizen o f Italy , las t entere d th e Unite d State s i n 192S . Hi s deportatio n i s sought o n th e groun d tha t

afte r entry h e ha s bee

n convicted o

f 2 crime s involvin g mora

l turpitud e "no t

arisin g ou t

o f asingl e schem

e o f criminal misconduct. " Th e issue i s whether th e crime s for

whic h he ha s bee

n convicted aros e ou t

o f asingl e schem

e o f criminal misconduct. 1 

### O

n March -25 , 1941 » respondent wa s convicted , upo n aplea, o f guilty , o n 1 1 count s o

f a n indictmen t

chargin g violatio n o f severa l provision s o

f th e Interna l Revenue laws , an d o n one count chargin g conspirac y t o violat e provisions

- o

f the ' Interna l 1 Sectio n 241(a)(4 ) [ 8 TJ.S.O . 1251(a ) (4) ] provide s i n pertinen t part : "An

y tfllen i n th e Unite d State s * * * shall , upon th e orde r o f th e Attorne y General , b e deporte d wh o • * * a t an y tim e afte r

entr y l aconvicte d o

f tw o crime s in

volvin g mora l turpitude , not arisin g ou t

of asingle scheme o

f crimina l mis

conduct , regardles s o

f whethe r confined therefo r

an d regardles s of

whethe r tt e convictions,wer e U

i asingl e trial * 

### 1T

0Revenu e laws . H e wa s sentence dt o imprisonmen t fo r ater mo f

8 year s an dfined$13,000 . Th e Service s relie s upo n th e conviction s base do n count s 6 an d11 . Coun t 6 charge s tha t

responden t

an d other s remove d20 0 gallon s o f alcoho l wit h inten t

t o defrau dth e Governmen t

o f ta s o n Septembe r

18 , 1940 , i n th e Count y o f Sanga

mo n i n violatio n o f

2 6 U.S.C . 3321,194 0 ed . Coun t 1 1 charge s tha t o n Septembe r

9 , 1940 , th e responden t an dother s committe dth e sam e ac t

i n th e sam e count y wit h th e sam e inten t i n violatio n o f th e sam e la w i n connectio n wit h 5 0 gallon s o f alcohol . Coun t

12 , th e conspirac y coun t

o f th e indictment , charge dthat

- fro mApri l 193 8 t o th e dat e o f

th e presentmen t

(Septembe r

1041 ) responden t combine dwit h other s t o commi t th e offense s describe di n th e othe r 1 1 count s o f

th e indictmen t

an dconspire dt o commi t othe r lik e offense s th e numbe r

o f whic h wa s unknown . Al l th e allegation s concernin g th e othe r

count s o f

th e indictmen t

wer e incorporate db y referenc e int o th e conspirac y count . Th e specia l inquir y officer foun dtha t

althoug h th e responden t ha dentere dint o agenera l conspirac y wit h other s t o commi t th e offense s charge di n count s 6 an d11 , th e offens e i n -eac h o f thos e count s wa s acomplete , individual , an ddistinc t crim e an dwa s no t

a par t o f asingl e schem e o f

crimina l misconduct . Counse l contend s tha t th e offense s i n count s 6 an d1 1 wer e committe di n pursuanc e o f th e conspirac y .and , therefore , ar e par t o f asingl e schem e o f

crim

ina l misconduct. . Th e cos e mos t pertinen t

o f thos e upo n whic h h e relie s i s Jeronim o v . Murff , 15 7 P . Supp . 80 8 (S.D . N.T. , 1957) . Th e specia l inquir y officer dismisse dJeronim o fro mconsideratio n o n th e groun dtha t

i t wa s decide db y adistric t cour t i n acircui t othe r tha n tha t

whic h woul dhav e jurisdictio n o f th e respondent' s case . Th e Servic e representativ e reinforce dth e positio n o f th e spe cia l inquir y officer

bu t als o attempte dt o distinguis h an dexplai n Jeronimo ? Withou t

implyin g tha t

ther e i s onl y on e answe r t o th e 'Th e Servic e representativ e argue s tha t Jeronim o doe s not

stan dfor

th e propositio n tha t

unlawfu l act s performe ddurin g th e existenc e o f aconspirac y ar e necessaril y committe da s par t o f asingl e scheme . H e believe s tha t i n Jeronimo , th e existenc e o f asingl e schem

e was found , no t

becaus e aconspirac y existe dbut

becaus e th e cour t

foun dtha t

al l o f Jeronimo' s act s wer e directe d t o asingl e end . I n th e instan t case , h e point s out , th e Indictmen t reveal s tha t responden t

conspire dt o commit

"divers " offenses . H e state dtha t thi s indicate s tha t

th e gran dJury "apparentl y considere dtha t th e responden t

an d other s ha dconspire dt o commit severa l crime s whic h woul ddiffe r i n charac

te r an dquality , an dno t

o f th e sam e kind. " Th e Servic e representativ e als o point s ou t

tha t th e convictio n o

n th e conspirac y coul dhav e ben n brough t abou t by proo f o f th e agreemen t

an dth e existenc e o

f an y on e o

f th e 20 over

t step s se t ou t (Al l but

on e o f th e overt

acts refe r

t o adat e othe r

tha n September

1 8 o r September

9 , 1940 , when th e act s mentione di n conjit a6 so d 1 1 wer e committed . Th e relatio n o f th e overt

act s of September

1 8 an dSep

tember & , if any , t o th e acts se t

forth In count s 6 an d1 1 i s no t known. ) Th e Servic e representativ e als o relie s upo n th e "ver y peculiar

no dver y ..unusua l facts " of Jeronimo . 17 1question , an dwhethe r o r no t th e instan t

cas e ca n b e distinguishe d fro mJerommO ) w e prefe r t o bas e ou r

decisio n primaril y o n th e belie f tha t Jeronim o doe s no t

se t fort h th e prope r

rule . Jeronim o ha dbee n ordere ddeporte do n th e groun dtha t h e wa s a twice-convicte dalien . Th e Cour t foun dthi s t o b e error . Jeronim o plotte dwit h other s t o defrau dth e Cit y o f Ne w Yor k

b y submittin g fraudulen t

claim s fo r

payment s i n connectio n wit h paintin g don e fo r th e Cit y o

f Ne w Yor k

o n contract s whic h appea r t o hav e bee n awarde dt o hi mfro mtim e t o time . H e wa s indicte dunde r a n eight-coun t

indictmen t

chargin g bribery , gran dlarceny , an dcon spiracy . H e wa s convicte do n th e conspirac y count , 4 larcen y count s an dabriber y count . Eac h o f th e larcen y count s concerne dsep arat e contract s an ddifferen t properties . Al l o f

th e contract s wer e wit h th e Cit y o f

Ne w York . Th e Servic e relie dupo n th e 4 larcen y conviction s fo r

th e deportatio n proceedings . Th e conspirac y coun t charge dth e existenc e o f aconspirac y fro mabou t Marc h 194 7 con tinuousl y t o abou t

Januar y 1949 . Nin e over t act s i n furtheranc e o f the ' conspirac y wer e se t fort h i n th e count . Th e remainin g count s charge dgran dlarcen y o r bribery . On e o r

mor e o f th e over t

act s se t fort h i n th e conspirac y coun t forme dth e base s fo r

th e othe r "counts . On e larcen y coun t covere dth e perio dfro mApri l 194 7 t o Octobe r 1£*-S , I t

involve da n aggregat e amoun t o f ove r $39,000 ; i t i s base do n tw o of

. th e over t

act s describe di n th e conspirac y count . On e larcen y coun t coveredth e perio dfro mJanuar y 194 8 t o Septembe r

1948 . I t

involve da n aggregat e amoun t o f ove r $43,000 ; i t

i s base dupo n tw o o

f th e overt , act s describe di n th e conspirac y count . On e larcen y coun t coveredth e perio dfro mabou t Jun e 194 8 t o abou t

Decembe r

1948. . I t

involve da n aggregat e amoun t o f ove r $52,00ft ; i t

i s base do n thre e over t act s describe d i n th e conspirac y count . On e larcen y coun t covere dth e perio d fro mOctobe r

194 8 t o Januar y 1949 . I t involve da n aggregat e amoun t o f ove r $50,000 ; i t

i s base do n tw o o f

th e over t

act s de

scribe di n th e conspirac y count . Th e concludin g paragrap h o f th e indictmen t

state dtha t

"Al l o f th e act s an dtransaction s allege di n eac h o f th e severa l count s i n thi s indictmen t ar e connecte dtogethe r an dconstitut e part s o f

acommo n schem e an dplan. " I n Jeronim o th e Governmen t argue dtha t

separat e crime s d o no t aris e ou t o f asingl e schem e o f

crimina l misconduc t

unles s th e crime s wer e committe dpursuan t t o asingl e sustaine dcrimina l impuls e an d tha t sinc e Jeronimo' s larcenie s wer e th e resul t o f separat e inde

penden t impulses , hi s crime s di dno t aris e ou t

o f asingl e schem e o f crimina l misconduct . Th e Cour t rule s tha t

th e existenc e o f

th e sam e crimina l impuls e wa s no t a n indispensibl e prerequisit e t o proof o f asingl e scheme . I n finding th e existenc e o f asingl e schem e i n JeronimO j th e Cour t

stated : ^17 2Th e evidenc e I n th e recor dconclusivel y establishe s tha t th e fou r larcenie s upo n whic h th e propose ddeportatio n I s basedaros e ou t of asingle continuin g crimina l enterprise , (p . 813 ) * * * Th e initia l formulatio n o f th e sam e subsistin g fundamenta l objec t an d purpose ; th e utilizatio n o f precisel y th e sam e method s an dprocedure s laeac h of aserie s of

successiv e situation s t o accomplis h th e origina l objective ; the . continuousl y interactin g relationshi p an dactivitie s o f th e sam e person s wh o originate dan dlaunche dth e project ; th e victimizin g o f th e sam e perso n throug h al l th e acts—suc h evidentiar y facts may , i n th e aggregate , demonstrat e th e existenc e of

asingl e crimina l enterprise , projec t an dundertaking . Suc h I s th e cas e a t bar . (p . 815 ) 

### Jeronim o appear s t o preven t th e us e o f conviction s arisin g ou t

o f " asingl e continuin g criminal enterprise, " withou t regar dt o th e tim e whic h ha s elapse dbetwee

n th e criminal acts . I n vie w of th e broa dcoverage whic h Congres s desire dt o giv e th e provision s fo r th e deportatio n o

f th e criminal classe s an di n vie w o f th e illogical situatio n which result s fro mth e interpretation , w e d o no t believe Jeronim o ca

n b e followed . Congres s intende dt o mak e th e law relatin g t o th e deportatio n o f th e crimina

l alien s broad . Th e ground s fo r th e deportatio n of

th e crimina l wer

e mad e retroactiv e i n effec t an dwer e applicabl e t o th e criminal alien despite th e fact s tha t h e had'previousl y bee

n i n th e Unite dState s legall y an dhi s act s occurre dprio r t o th e enactment of th e Immigratio n an dNationality Act. 8 

### Th e fac t tha t th e alie n ha dbee n made deportabl e di dno t mea n tha t h e mus t o f neces sity be deporte dfo r

provisio n wa s made for

th e suspension o

f hi s deportatio n i n th e discretio n of th e administrativ e authoritie s an d Congress . Obviously , i t

wa s th e inten t

o f Congres s t o brin g unde r review th e desirability o

f continued , residenc e i n th e Unite dState s o f person s wh

o ha dbee n convicte do

f crime s involvin g moral turpi

tude . Th e la

w shoul dno t

b e interprete di n suc

h amanner

a s t o remove asubstantial segmen t o f crimina l alien s fromsuch review . Jeronim o wouldremove fro mliability t o deportatio n th e alien who , b y carryin g o

n hi s crime s ove

r aperio do

f years , reveale dtha t he was confirme

di n hi s criminality . Thi s interpretatio n ca n hardl y be i n accor

dwit h th e inten t

o f Congres s t o mak

e deportabl e alien s wh o wer e convicte dtwic e whethe r o r no t the y wer

e confirme

d s '< * • • i th e instan t

bil l [H. R5878 ] make s th e followin g basi c an dsignifi

can t changes : • * * 5 . Broaden s th e ground s for exclusio n an ddeportatio n o f crimina l alien s * • ". " (H.R . 1365 , Februar y 14 , 1952 , 82dCong. , 2 dsesa. , U.S . Cod e Congressional an dAdministrativ e News , Vol . 3,1952 , p . 1679) ; "Thi s clas s o f deportabl e alien s [alien s I n sectio n 241(a)(4) ] ha s been modifiedt o facilitat e th e deportatio n of undesirabl e crimina l aliens . Thus , a aalie n wh o a t an y tim e afte r

entr y i s convicte do

f tw o crime s involvin g mora l turpitud e i s deportable , regardles s o f whethe r confinedtherefor , wherea s unde r existin g la w th e alie n mus t

hav e been sentence dt o ater mo f ayea r o r mor e becaus e o f suc h conviction s * * • " (S.R . 1187 , 82dCong. , 3 dsess. , p . 21 ; se e paragrap h entitle d"Stricte r

Construction," p . 61 , 8 U.S.O.A, ; Lvlimm n v . Unite dState * e aret . Oargon , 85 3 U.S . 085) . 17 3

### criminals . A brie f bit . o f history will b e helpfu l a t thi s time. Th e law previou s t o th e sectio n i n questio n wa s interprete da s requirin g th e deportatio n o

f th e twice-convicte dalie n who afte r entry ha d shown himself

t o be acriminal o

f a"confirmed " type. * Sinc e th e "repeater " i s th e plaines t

confirme dtype , th e Suprem e Court hel d tha t Congres s intende dt o depor t th e twice-convicte dalie n onl y i f th e alie n afte r

convictio n an dincarceratio n onc e agai n committe d acrim e involvin g moral turpitud e an dwa s agai n convicte dan d incarcerated. 0 

### Th e change s brought abou t by th e Ac t

o f 196 2 sho w tha t Congres s wishe dt o mak e liabl e t o deportatio n no t only th e confirme dcrimina l bu t

als o an y alien wh

o committe dtw o crime s afte r entry , s o lon g a s th e crime s di dno t aris e ou t

of asingl e schem e o f crimina l misconduct . Thus , Congres s eliminate dth e re quirement tha t the . twice-convicte dalien ha dt o b e sentence dt o imprisonment

fo r ayea r o r more ; i t eliminate dth e requirement tha t th e alien hadt o be confined ; andi t eliminate dth e requirement tha t th e secon

dconvictio n ha dt o follo w aconfinement . A s w e hav e previously mentioned , i t mad e th e law retroactive . I n vie w o f thi s attemp t

t o subjec t

th e twice-convicte dalie n t o deportatio n whethe r or no t he wa s aconfirme

dcriminal , i t

woul dappea

r contrar y t o th e inten t

o f Congres s t o so interpre t

th e law a s t o permi t th e on e whose violatio n o

f la w ma y exten dove

r alon g perio do

f tim e an dwho ma

y hav e engage di n aserie s o f criminal acts , t o escap e fro mliability t o deportatio n merely becaus e h e ha ddedicate d himself i n advanc e t o acours e o f certai n criminal conduc t wit h other s agains t

th e sam e victim . Especiall y difficul t i s i t t o accept thi s exemptio n whe

n i t i s considere dtha t

aconspirac y i s a

n offens e o f th e "graves t

character , sometime s quit e outweighin g i n injury t o th e public , th e mer

e commissio

n o f th e contemplate dcrime." * I f Jeronim o ha d*io

t bee n charge dwit

h conspiracy , bu t

merel y wit h th e substantiv e crimes , wouldh e hav e bee n deportabl e a s a twice-convicte dalien ! W e have ' se t fort h th e tes t announce db y th e Cour t concernin g th e manne r

i n which evidentiary factama y estab

lis h th e existenc e o

f asingl e scheme . Under thi s test , i t

i s pos sibl e t o argu e ver

y convincingly that ' th e Cour t woul dhav e bee

n •hi e t o reac h th e sam

e resul t i t did . Jeronim o wil l mak e mos t difficul t th e applicatio n o

f th e immigratio n law s t o th e twice-con

victe dalien wh

o ha s committe dsimila

r offense s agains t

th e sam e victim . Le t u s conside

r th e incongruou s situatio n whic h arise s i f th e section i s interprete dt o exclude fro mliability t o deportatio n th e alien who committe dhi s crime s i n th e cours e o f aconspirac y or

a s 'Sectio n 19(a) , Ac t

o t Februar y 5 , 1&1

7 (8 9 Sta t

874) . o Fon g Bo w Ta n v . PhtXan , 88 8 U.S . 6 . * Unite dState s v . RaUnowich , 28 8 U.S . 78 ; Untie dState s v . Lancaster , 4 4 Fed . 89 6 (O.O . 6a. , 1801) . 

### 17 4aresul t o f a n inten t

t o victimiz e th e sam e individua l Alie n 1 , a youn g ma n fallin g i n wit h evi l companions , rob s B an dfive min

ute s late r

rob s C . H e i s apprehende dan dconvicte do f bot h rob

beries . H e neve r

agai n become s involve dwit h th e law . Alie n 2 , alon e o r i n conspirac y wit h others , carrie s o n aschem e t o defrau d o r ro b th e sam e victi move r aperio do

f man y years . Man y crim

ina l act s ar e committed . Alie n 1 i s subjec t to . deportation . Unde r Jeronvma , alie n 2 , aconfirme dcriminal , i s fre e fro mliabilit y t o deportation . Congres s coul dno t hav e intende dsuc h a n illogica l result . I t i s tru e tha t

wher e languag e i n adeportatio n statut e i s sus ceptibl e t o mor e tha n on e interpretation , tha t mos t favorabl e t o th e alie n shoul db e taken . However , suc h arul e shoul dno t appl y wher e th e favorabl e rul e prevent s areasonabl e interpretatio n o f th e statut e i n th e ligh t

o f th e genera l scheme , whil e th e strict , vie w permit s th e genera l schem e t o b e effectuated . Th e statut e shoul db e interprete dt o includ e th e greates t numbe r o f twice-convicte daliens . Thi s ca n b e done , an dth e claus e i n questio n ca n a t th e sam e tim e b e give n effect

b y exemptin g th e twice-convicte dcrimina l whos e act s ar e essentiall y on e act . W e believ e tha t thi s tes t ha s bee n th e basi s o f administrativ e an djudicia l ruling s holdin g tha t asingl e schem e existed . Thus , th e followin g hav e bee n hel dt o b e singl e schemes : Conviction s base dupo n th e sam e ac t (counterfeitin g an d possessio n o f

counterfei t

money) ; conviction s base dupo n a n aggre gat e o f act s occurrin g a t

th e sam e tim e (conviction s fo r indecen t fondlin g o f

tw o minor s i n th e sam e roo ma t th e sam e time) ; con viction s base dupo n closel y connecte dact s performe da t abou t th e sam e tim e t o brin g t o fruitio n some immediat e crimina l purpose , (breakin g an dentr y o f

aban k an dassaul t

upo n aban k

watchman) . W e d o no t

thin k i t unreasonabl e t o limi t

th e exemptio n fro m deportatio n t o th e categorie s w e hav e state d(an dsuc h othe r relate d one s a s th e futur e ma y develop ) i n vie w o f th e desir e o f

Congres s t o exten dit s contro l ove r th e crimina l alien . Thi s interpretatio n i s logica l t o th e exten t tha t i t make s th e intrinsi c natur e o f th e crimina l conduc t

th e tes t rathe r tha n th e manne r

i n whic h a n in

dictmen t ma y b e draw n u p o r

th e fac t tha t th e alie n confine dhi s act s t o on e victi mpursuan t t o apreconceive dplan . I t seem s t o u s tha t

certaint y an dconsistenc y requir e tha t inter

pretation s o f

th e phras e "singl e scheme " b e base dupo n som e com mo n ground . Ther e i s acommo n groun di n decision s whic h find a singl e schem e i n act s whic h constitut e bu t on e crimina l episode . The . case s excep t

fo r Jeronim o hav e refuse dt o findth e existenc e o f a "singl e scheme " unles s on e ac t wa s involved , o r

thos e whic h wer e don e wer e s o relate di n tim e an dpurpos e a s i n realit y t o constitut e bu t on e separat e episode . Th e fac t tha t differen t victim s wor e in

17 5

### volve dor tha t th e episod

e .wa s bu t par t o f acontinuin g pla n whic h resulte di n th e birt h of

othe r episode s wa s no t

considere dmaterial . Ther e i s n o commo

n groun dbetwee

n thes e case s an don

e whic h con sider s a s par t

o f asingl e schem

e th e man y episode s whic h ar e th e resul t o f acontinuin g agreement

t o engag e i n man

y episodes . This , w e think , weaken s th e cogenc y o f th e decision i n Jeronimo , fo r ther e shoul dbe apattern ; i f

Jeronim o doe s no t

fit int o th e patter n whic h i t i s agree dmus t

resul t i n asingl e scheme , the n Jeronim o doe s no t stat e acorrec t

rul e o f law. ' W e conclud

e tha t thi s recordestablishe s th e existenc e of tw o in

dependent criminal act s s o separate dby tim e tha t the y constitut e individua l episode s an ds o d o no t constitut e asingl e schem e of . crimina l misconduct . Deportability i s established . Th e respondent

ha s applie dfo r

preexaminatio n o r

suspensio n o f deportatio n unde r

sectio n 244(a ) o

f th e Immigratio n an dNationality Ac t ( 8 U.S.C . 1254(a)) . Respondent' s age , hi s length o f residenc e i n th e Unite dStates , th e fac t tha t hi s wif e i s anative-bo mUnite d State s citize n who

mh e marrie di n 1935 , an dth e presenc e o f sib

ling s i n th e Unite dStates , mak e i t prope r t o findtha t

hi s deporta

tio n woul dresul t

i n hardshi p require dt o qualif y fo r suspensio n o f deportation . However , w e believ e tha t

hi s application s shoul d b e denied . Thi s i s fo r

th e reason s give n b y th e specia l inquiry office r an dbecaus e th e recordcreate s asubstantia l doub t a s t o whethe r th e respondent

ha s bee n candi dwit

h th e Government

concernin g hi s financia

l ability t o pay hi s indebtednes s t o th e Govern

ment , an dhi s participatio n i n gamblin g activities ; an dbecaus e thi s ver y lac k o f cando r prevent s hi mfro mhearin g hi s burde n of establishin g tha t

h e merit s discretionar

y relief . Th e ful l fact s con cernin g discretionar

y relie f hav e bee n se t fort h b y th e specia

l in

quir y office

r an di t i s unnecessar

y t o repeat

them . I n reachin g ou r conclusio n w

e hav e carefull y considere dth e entir e record , includin g th e brief submitte do

n appeal , th e affidavit

s o f recordan dth e ora l argumen t o f counsel , includin g hi s statemen t tha t respondent' s difficult y arise s ou t

o f hi s inability t o expres s himself . No chang e shoul db e mad

e i n th e orde r

o f th e specia

l inquiry officer

. Order : I t i s ordere dtha t

th e appeal b e an dth e sam e i s hereby dismissed . Editor' s Note : Motio n fo r summary Judgmen t

wa s filedwit h th e Unite d State s Distric t

Court fo r th e Norther n Distric t

o f Illinois , b y th e subjec t

alie n on Januar y 22 , 1959 . I n amemorandu mdecisio n rendere dby th e Court on Marc h 81,1999 , i n th e subjec t action , Zit o v . Uov&al , 17 4 F . Supp , 581 , motio n fo r summary judgmen t

wa s grante dan dth e outstandin g orde r o f deportatio n I n th e cas e wa adeclare dnul l an dvoi d-a s not deeme dt o h e base do n sufficien t evidence . 

### 17 6